ML12278A011
| ML12278A011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML12278A011 (6) | |
Text
1 SeabrookNPEm Resource From:
Wentzel, Michael Sent:
Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:58 AM To:
Cliche, Richard
Subject:
Draft Phone Call Summary Attachments:
Seabrook SAMA Phone Call Summary.docx
- Rick, Attached is a draft of a phone call summary for the SAMA phone call yesterday. Please review and let me know if you have any comments.
- Thanks, Mike Michael Wentzel Project Manager NRR/DLR/RPB2 (301) 415-6459 michael.wentzel@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier:
Seabrook_License_Renewal_NonPublic Email Number:
3453 Mail Envelope Properties (C0A338EE37A11447B136119705BF9A3F016B7D01DF59)
Subject:
Draft Phone Call Summary Sent Date:
10/4/2012 6:57:53 AM Received Date:
10/4/2012 6:57:55 AM From:
Wentzel, Michael Created By:
Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Cliche, Richard" <Richard.Cliche@nexteraenergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 326 10/4/2012 6:57:55 AM Seabrook SAMA Phone Call Summary.docx 29350 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
ENCLOSURE 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OCTOBER 3, 2012 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Michael Wentzel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
John Parillo NRC Rick Cliche NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra)
Rich Turcotte NextEra
CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED PERTAINING TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLCS SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OCTOBER 3, 2012 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) held a telephone conference call on October 3, 2012, to discuss and clarify NextEras September 13, 2012 responses to the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Seabrook Station license renewal application environmental review.
Response to RAI 1.a In the RAI response the core damage frequency (CDF) for LPCCA is presented as 3.19E-7/yr, an increase from the 2.34E-7/yr presented in the July 2012 severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis supplement. Which is the correct value and what is the reason for the difference? Is the correct value the basis for risk reduction and benefit values presented in the SAMA analysis supplement, and recent RAI responses dated September 13, 2012?
Discussion:
NextEra stated, and the staff verified, that the values that were presented in the September 13, 2012 response to staff RAIs for initiating event CDFs were correct as presented and consistent with those presented in its March 19, 2012 SAMA supplement. Note: The CDF for LPCCA is 2.34E-7/yr; The CDF for LACPA is 3.19E-7/yr.
Response to RAI 4.c In the RAI response to RAI 4.c, the maximum averted benefit (MAB) is given as
$3,048,510,slightly different from the $3,051,815 value given in March 2012 SAMA analysis supplement. Which is the correct value and what is the reason for the difference?
Discussion:
NextEra stated that the correct MAB value is $3,048,510. The change in MAB from the March 19, 2012 supplement to the September 13, 2012 responses to RAIs resulted from minor changes in the analysis due to internal review by NextEra personnel. The change made consistent the assumptions used for time to declare a general emergency.
Table RAI-3-2 New LL5 Basic Event SAMA Candidates In Table RAI-3-2, SAMA analysis case SW707C appears to address two different situations:
one eliminating the failure of SW Cooling Tower pump room ventilation fans FN-70 and 71 and another eliminating failure of SW Cooling Tower SWGR room ventilation fans FN-63 and 64.
These appear to be grouped for convenience. Clarify how the risk benefit is determined in each case.
Discussion:
NextEra stated that the two cases represent same basic risk in the Seabrook probabilistic risk assessment, so there was no need to break them out separately. NextEra further stated that the risk benefit would be the same in both cases.
Table RAI-3-3 Phase II Evaluation of New CDF Initiating Event SAMA Candidates In Table RAI-3-3 the expected SAMA costs presented for initiating events F4TFPB, FCRAC, and LOC1LG is $100K. This value appears to be a nominal value rather than a calculated cost (in light of the low calculated benefits perhaps). Clarify the basis for the $100K value used for these SAMA analysis cases.
Discussion:
NextEra stated that the $100K value is a nominal value and that a more detailed cost benefit was not performed due to low benefit. Additionally, the $100K value is used by NextEra as the minimum value for the purposes of the SAMA analysis. Additionally, the $100K value is used by NextEra in their SAMA analysis as the minimum implementation cost associated with a hardware change.