ML18213A391: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML18213A391
| number = ML18213A391
| issue date = 07/12/2018
| issue date = 07/12/2018
| title = 07/12/2018 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Public Meeting
| title = Public Meeting
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC
| author affiliation = NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000266, 05000301
| docket = 05000266, 05000301
| license number = DPR-024, DPR-027
| license number = DPR-024, DPR-027
| contact person = Chawla M L, 415-8371
| contact person = Chawla M, 415-8371
| document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts
| document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts
| page count = 10
| page count = 10
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:CONSTRUCTION TRUSS License Amendment Request   Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 &
{{#Wiki_filter:CONSTRUCTION TRUSS License Amendment Request Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Public Meeting July 12th 2018
2 Public Meeting July 12 th 2018 1
AGENDA *Introductions
*Purpose *Changes made since Nov 2017 audit
*Reviews performed
*Summary *Questions NextEra Personnel *Steve Catron Corporate Licensing
*Eric Schulz Point Beach Licensing
*Rich LaPlante Point Beach Engineering
*Ted Kulczycky Corporate PRA
*Anil Julka Corporate PRA


PURPOSE  *Provide overview of changes made to seismic and thermal hazard analysis.
1 AGENDA
  *Summarize results of independent review.
* Introductions
* Purpose
* Changes made since Nov 2017 audit
* Reviews performed
* Summary
* Questions


Changes Made Since the Audit In Nov 2017 CAFTA based event trees and fault trees used to assess seismic and thermal hazards. Integrated Internal Events Model into seismic and thermal hazard models.
NextEra Personnel
-Open findings addressed in Attachment A of PRA analysis.
* Steve Catron  Corporate Licensing
Most dispositioned as no impact, conservative impact, or addressed with sensitivity analysis.
* Eric Schulz    Point Beach Licensing
Seismic fragilities from IPEEE.
* Rich LaPlante  Point Beach Engineering
  -Some IPEEE fragilities updated. Addressed modifications made to the plant post IPEEE based on IPEEE insights.
* Ted Kulczycky Corporate PRA
Commitment to modification that will fully protect U2 PORV control cables from missile hazards
* Anil Julka    Corporate PRA
- spring 2020.
HEPs based on latest EPRI methodology.
Quantified LERF based on bounding or conservative qualitative and quantitative assumptions related to containment integrity post construction truss failure.
Comprehensive sensitivity studies address key uncertainties. Followed guidance in RG 1.174 and NUREG 1855.


Summary of third party review Review Scope Overall methodology and results Bounding Analysis Demonstrably Conservative Analysis HRA Conformance to RG 1.174; defense in depth, safety margin, and risk acceptance guidelines.
PURPOSE
Conformance to RG 1.200  
* Provide overview of changes made to seismic and thermal hazard analysis.
- high level review. Reasonableness of assumptions and inputs.
* Summarize results of independent review.
 
Changes Made Since the Audit In Nov 2017
* CAFTA based event trees and fault trees used to assess seismic and thermal hazards.
* Integrated Internal Events Model into seismic and thermal hazard models.
  - Open findings addressed in Attachment A of PRA analysis. Most dispositioned as no impact, conservative impact, or addressed with sensitivity analysis.
* Seismic fragilities from IPEEE.
  - Some IPEEE fragilities updated. Addressed modifications made to the plant post IPEEE based on IPEEE insights.
* Commitment to modification that will fully protect U2 PORV control cables from missile hazards - spring 2020.
* HEPs based on latest EPRI methodology.
* Quantified LERF based on bounding or conservative qualitative and quantitative assumptions related to containment integrity post construction truss failure.
* Comprehensive sensitivity studies address key uncertainties. Followed guidance in RG 1.174 and NUREG 1855.
 
INDEPENDENT REVIEW Summary of third party review Review Scope                                     Key Comments Overall methodology and results               Innovative approach supported with good Bounding Analysis                           arguments that justify methodology.
Demonstrably Conservative Analysis         Confirmed key issues addressed appropriately.
HRA                                       Editorial comments helped clarify methodology Conformance to RG 1.174; defense in depth,     for reviewers.
safety margin, and risk acceptance             Validated assumptions were reasonable and well guidelines.                                    supported.
Conformance to RG 1.200 - high level           Recommended additional sensitivity analyses to review.                                         address key uncertainties associated with Reasonableness of assumptions and inputs.      quantitative and qualitative inputs and assumptions.
Appropriate integration of structural inputs.
Appropriate integration of structural inputs.
Appropriate integration of internal events model and Seismic IPEEE.
Supporting HRA documentation enhanced in Appropriate integration of internal events conjunction with limited quantification revision model and Seismic IPEEE.
Uncertainty Conformance to NUREG 1855 guidance Confirm sensitivity studies address key uncertainties.
No changes required to model structure Uncertainty Conformance to NUREG 1855 guidance         Clarifications made on seismic/structural inputs Confirm sensitivity studies address key   ALL COMMENTS INCORPORATED OR RESOLVED.
Key Comments Innovative approach supported with good arguments that justify methodology.
uncertainties.
Confirmed key issues addressed appropriately.
6
Editorial comments helped clarify methodology for reviewers.
 
Validated assumptions were reasonable and well supported.
RESULTS Point Beach ALL HAZARDS PRA Results HAZARD              CDF (1/Rx Yr)    LERF (1/Rx Yr)
Recommended additional sensitivity analyses to address key uncertainties associated with quantitative and qualitative inputs and assumptions.
Unit 1    Unit 2  Unit 1    Unit 2 TOTAL                    7.2E-05 8.2E-05 2.3E-06 2.5E-06 Case                      CDF    LERF Bounding                                1.93E-06  7.55E-07 Demonstrably Conservative              2.19E-07 5.26E-08 NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 4                                      NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 5 TOTAL CDF - ALL HAZARDS                                    TOTAL LERF - ALL HAZARDS
Supporting HRA documentation enhanced in conjunction with limited quantification revision No changes required to model structure Clarifications made on seismic/structural inputs ALL COMMENTS INCORPORATED OR RESOLVED.
6 INDEPENDENT REVIEW


Point Beach ALL HAZARDS PRA Results HAZARD  CDF (1/Rx Yr)
CONCLUSION
LERF (1/Rx Yr)
* Low risk impact
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 TOTAL 7.2E-05 8.2E-05 2.3E-06 2.5E-06  RESULTS NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 4 TOTAL CDF
* PRA Identified mods that will protect critical mitigating functions during seismic and thermal events.
- ALL HAZARDS NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 5 TOTAL LERF
* Supporting evaluations based on bounding and conservative assumptions
- ALL HAZARDS Case CDF LERF Bounding 1.93 E-06 7.55 E-07 Demonstrably Conservative 2.19 E-07 5.26 E-08 CONCLUSION Low risk impact PRA Identified mods that will protect critical mitigating functions during seismic and thermal events.
* Meets RG 1.174 requirements
Supporting evaluations based on bounding and conservative assumptions Meets RG 1.174 requirements  
  - PRA quality meets RG 1.200
-PRA quality meets RG 1.200
  - Open F&O impacts will be addressed
-Open F&O impacts will be addressed Independent reviews from industry experts confirmed validity of methodology and assumptions.
* Independent reviews from industry experts confirmed validity of methodology and assumptions.


QUESTIONS *Questions}}
QUESTIONS
* Questions}}

Latest revision as of 10:04, 30 November 2019

Public Meeting
ML18213A391
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/12/2018
From:
Point Beach
To:
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
Chawla M, 415-8371
References
Download: ML18213A391 (10)


Text

CONSTRUCTION TRUSS License Amendment Request Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Public Meeting July 12th 2018

1 AGENDA

  • Introductions
  • Purpose
  • Changes made since Nov 2017 audit
  • Reviews performed
  • Summary
  • Questions

NextEra Personnel

  • Steve Catron Corporate Licensing
  • Eric Schulz Point Beach Licensing
  • Rich LaPlante Point Beach Engineering
  • Ted Kulczycky Corporate PRA
  • Anil Julka Corporate PRA

PURPOSE

  • Provide overview of changes made to seismic and thermal hazard analysis.
  • Summarize results of independent review.

Changes Made Since the Audit In Nov 2017

  • CAFTA based event trees and fault trees used to assess seismic and thermal hazards.
  • Integrated Internal Events Model into seismic and thermal hazard models.

- Open findings addressed in Attachment A of PRA analysis. Most dispositioned as no impact, conservative impact, or addressed with sensitivity analysis.

  • Seismic fragilities from IPEEE.

- Some IPEEE fragilities updated. Addressed modifications made to the plant post IPEEE based on IPEEE insights.

  • Commitment to modification that will fully protect U2 PORV control cables from missile hazards - spring 2020.
  • Quantified LERF based on bounding or conservative qualitative and quantitative assumptions related to containment integrity post construction truss failure.
  • Comprehensive sensitivity studies address key uncertainties. Followed guidance in RG 1.174 and NUREG 1855.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW Summary of third party review Review Scope Key Comments Overall methodology and results Innovative approach supported with good Bounding Analysis arguments that justify methodology.

Demonstrably Conservative Analysis Confirmed key issues addressed appropriately.

HRA Editorial comments helped clarify methodology Conformance to RG 1.174; defense in depth, for reviewers.

safety margin, and risk acceptance Validated assumptions were reasonable and well guidelines. supported.

Conformance to RG 1.200 - high level Recommended additional sensitivity analyses to review. address key uncertainties associated with Reasonableness of assumptions and inputs. quantitative and qualitative inputs and assumptions.

Appropriate integration of structural inputs.

Supporting HRA documentation enhanced in Appropriate integration of internal events conjunction with limited quantification revision model and Seismic IPEEE.

No changes required to model structure Uncertainty Conformance to NUREG 1855 guidance Clarifications made on seismic/structural inputs Confirm sensitivity studies address key ALL COMMENTS INCORPORATED OR RESOLVED.

uncertainties.

6

RESULTS Point Beach ALL HAZARDS PRA Results HAZARD CDF (1/Rx Yr) LERF (1/Rx Yr)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 TOTAL 7.2E-05 8.2E-05 2.3E-06 2.5E-06 Case CDF LERF Bounding 1.93E-06 7.55E-07 Demonstrably Conservative 2.19E-07 5.26E-08 NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 4 NRC RG 1.174 FIGURE 5 TOTAL CDF - ALL HAZARDS TOTAL LERF - ALL HAZARDS

CONCLUSION

  • Low risk impact
  • PRA Identified mods that will protect critical mitigating functions during seismic and thermal events.
  • Supporting evaluations based on bounding and conservative assumptions

- PRA quality meets RG 1.200

- Open F&O impacts will be addressed

  • Independent reviews from industry experts confirmed validity of methodology and assumptions.

QUESTIONS

  • Questions