ML13184A096

NRR E-mail Capture - Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information Risk Evaluation for Fifth 10-Year ISI Program Plan

ML13184A096
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/01/2013
From:	Beltz T Plant Licensing Branch III
To:	Millen M Point Beach
References
Download: ML13184A096 (3)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Beltz, Terry Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:39 PM To: Millen, Michael Cc: 'harv.hanneman@nexteraenergy.com'; Carlson, Robert; Reisifard, Mehdi

Subject:

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information re: Risk Evaluation for Fifth 10-Year ISI Program Plan (TAC Nos. MF1150 and MF1151)

Attachments: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information Regarding Risk Evaluation for Fifth Ten-Year ISI Program Plan (TAC Nos. MF1150 and MF1151).docx

Dear Mr. Millen:

By letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated March 19, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML13079A092), NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC submitted a request for approval of a risk-informed/safety based inservice inspection alternative for Class 1 and 2 piping in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), for the fifth 10-year interval at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. Relief is requested on the basis that alternative methods will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

The NRC staff in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Licensing Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatory has identified areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. A draft request for additional information is provided as an attachment to this e-mail.

You may accept this draft RAI as a formal Request for Additional Information and provide a response by August 9, 2013. Alternatively, you may request to discuss the contents of this draft RAI with the NRC staff in a conference call, including any change to the proposed response date.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, TERRY A. BELTZ, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Mail Stop: O-8D15 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 741 Mail Envelope Properties (Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov20130701133900)

Subject:

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information re: Risk Evaluation for Fifth 10-Year ISI Program Plan (TAC Nos. MF1150 and MF1151)

Sent Date: 7/1/2013 1:39:10 PM Received Date: 7/1/2013 1:39:00 PM From: Beltz, Terry Created By: Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov Recipients:

"'harv.hanneman@nexteraenergy.com'" <harv.hanneman@nexteraenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Carlson, Robert" <Robert.Carlson@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Reisifard, Mehdi" <Mehdi.Reisifard@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Millen, Michael" <Michael.Millen@nexteraenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1411 7/1/2013 1:39:00 PM Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Draft Request for Additional Information Regarding Risk Evaluation for Fifth Ten-Year ISI Program Plan (TAC Nos. MF1150 and MF1151).docx 40013 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FIFTH TEN-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 (TAC NOS. MF1150 AND MF1151)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Licensing Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has reviewed the risk evaluation submitted on March 19, 2013, by NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, in support of its request for approval of fifth ten-year interval inservice inspection program plan (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System No. ML13079A092).

The NRC staff has identified areas where additional information is needed to complete its review, as provided below.

1. Please explain any inconsistencies between results of the risk impact analysis presented in Table 3.4 and the Table on page 16 of the submittal.

For example: On page 16, the change in core damage frequency for Unit 1 associated with Chemical Volume & Control with POD Credit is -1.12 x 10-10, where the same change in Table 3.4a is -1.25 x 10-10.

ENCLOSURE