ML11172A294

Lr - Telecon Summary for Call on May 5, 2011

ML11172A294
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/21/2011
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML11172A294 (8)

Text

SeabrookNPEm Resource From: Green, Kimberly Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:49 PM To: Cliche, Richard Cc: SeabrookNPEm Resource; Plasse, Richard

Subject:

Telecon Summary for call on May 5, 2011 Attachments: 050511, Telecon Summary Between NRC and NextEra Seabrook, Discussing TLAA assumptions.docx

Rick, Attached is a draft of the telecon summary for the call held on May 5, 2011. Please review and let me know if I correctly reflected what was said during the call.

If you have any comments or corrections, please let me know.

Thanks, Kimberly Green (301) 4151627 kimberly.green@nrc.gov 1

Hearing Identifier: Seabrook_License_Renewal_NonPublic Email Number: 1626 Mail Envelope Properties (F5A4366DF596BF458646C9D433EA37D793E066F21B)

Subject:

Telecon Summary for call on May 5, 2011 Sent Date: 6/21/2011 2:49:06 PM Received Date: 6/21/2011 2:49:10 PM From: Green, Kimberly Created By: Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov Recipients:

"SeabrookNPEm Resource" <SeabrookNPEm.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Plasse, Richard" <Richard.Plasse@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Cliche, Richard" <Richard.Cliche@fpl.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 366 6/21/2011 2:49:10 PM 050511, Telecon Summary Between NRC and NextEra Seabrook, Discussing TLAA assumptions.docx 40719 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 MAY 5, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME4028)

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 May 5, 2011, to obtain clarification on information contained in the Seabrook Station license renewal application (LRA). The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the applicants information in the LRA. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a summary of the issues discussed during the call with the applicant.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Rick Plasse, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 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:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME RPlasse DWrona DATE 6/ /11 6/ /11 6/ /11 Memorandum to NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC from M.Wentzel dated May XX, 2011

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MAY 5, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME4028)

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 RPlasse BPham DWrona EMiller ICouret, OPA EDacus, OCA MSpencer, OGC WRaymond, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI NSheehan, RI DScrenci, RI JJohnson, RI ABurritt, RI

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS May 5, 2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Kim Green U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Andrew Prinaris NRC Ching Ng NRC Jim Medoff NRC Richard Cliche NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC. (NextEra)

Paul Willoughby NextEra Ed Carley NextEra ENCLOSURE 1

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

1. LRA Section 4.6.1 In LRA Section 4.6.1, the applicant stated the following:

The Seabrook Station analyses confirmed the 40-year anticipated stress cycles listed below would satisfy the exemption criteria of NE 3221.5(d).

• Atmospheric-to-service pressure cycles (120 cycles)

• Temperature difference from Startup to Shutdown (120 cycles)

• Operating Basis Earthquake (500 cycles)

• LOCA (10 cycles)

However, in the UFSAR Section 3.8.1.3, the applicant states the following:

Cyclic Loading The various cycles loads were considered in the design. The following design conditions were considered in the fatigue analysis:

120 cycles start and shutdown 500 OBE cycles 100 SSE cycles 1 accident cycle (LOCA)

The staff asked for the following clarification:

a. What is the difference between the startup and shutdown cycles presented in the LRA and in the UFSAR?

Response: NextEra clarified that the 120 cycles for plant startups and shutdowns cited in the UFSAR was used to determine both the thermal and the pressure cycles of 120 used in the TLAA and explained that the pressure cycles are derived from the thermal cycles (also 120 cycles both in the LRA and in the UFSAR).

b. Why did NextEra use 10 accident cycles (LOCA) in the TLAA?

Response: NextEra stated that it used 10 cycles for conservatism in the TLAA, but its design basis load is 1 cycle (LOCA) as stated in the UFSAR.

2. LRA Section 4.6.2 In LRA Section 4.6.2, the applicant stated that, The design of the containment penetrations did not involve cyclic evaluations and therefore are not considered TLAAs.

For the piping and electrical penetrations the staff reviewed UFSAR 3.8.2.4 titled Design and ENCLOSURE 2

Analysis Procedures, parts (d), (e), and (f) titled High Energy Piping Penetrations, Moderate Energy Piping Penetrations, and Electrical Penetrations. The staff asked for clarification regarding no TLAAs for penetrations. Additionally, the staff asked for clarification on whether the mechanical piping that goes through the penetration are TLAAs.

Response

NextEra stated that its Architect-Engineer was United Engineers and Constructors, and that the A-E did not perform cyclic analyses for the containment penetrations.

With regard to the mechanical piping that goes through the penetrations, the applicant stated that the piping is ASME Code Class 2 piping, and the TLAAs (which are implicit) for that piping are addressed in LRA Section 4.3.7. The applicant also referred the staff to its RAI response dated April 22, 2011.

ENCLOSURE 2