|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML17256A775 | | | number = ML17256A775 |
| | issue date = 09/11/2017 | | | issue date = 09/11/2017 |
| | title = (External_Sender) Seabrook Flooding MSA | | | title = NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Seabrook Flooding MSA |
| | author name = Thomas C | | | author name = Thomas C |
| | author affiliation = NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC | | | author affiliation = NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC |
| | addressee name = Vega F G | | | addressee name = Vega F |
| | addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/JLD | | | addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/JLD |
| | docket = 05000443 | | | docket = 05000443 |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Thomas, Christine <Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com> | | {{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Thomas, Christine <Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com> |
| Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:40 AM To: Vega, Frankie | | Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:40 AM To: Vega, Frankie |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| [External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSAGood morning Frankie, Please see responses in red. | | [External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSA Good morning Frankie, Please see responses in red. |
| | | : Regards, Christine From: Vega, Frankie [mailto:Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov] |
| Regards, Christine | | Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:45 PM To: Thomas, Christine |
| | |
| From: Vega, Frankie [mailto:Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov | |
| ] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:45 PM To: Thomas, Christine
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Seabrook MSA CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL Hello Mrs. Thomas; The technical staff is currently reviewing Seabrook's MSA and has identified few areas in which clarifications are needed in order to complete the review. Since these are relatively simple clarifications, no formal responses are needed at this moment so replying to this email would work for the staff. | | Seabrook MSA CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL Hello Mrs. Thomas; The technical staff is currently reviewing Seabrooks MSA and has identified few areas in which clarifications are needed in order to complete the review. Since these are relatively simple clarifications, no formal responses are needed at this moment so replying to this email would work for the staff. |
| * Flood Event Duration o Between MSA Tables 3-1 and 3-2 the licensee uses the terms "Period of Inundation" for storm surge, and "Duration of Significant Flooding" for LIP. It is not clear if these terms are intended to be different or synonymous. Please clarify if these descriptions represent the same duration parameters for both hazards. Note that "Period of Inundation" is the term utilized and described | | * Flood Event Duration o Between MSA Tables 3-1 and 3-2 the licensee uses the terms Period of Inundation for storm surge, and Duration of Significant Flooding for LIP. It is not clear if these terms are intended to be different or synonymous. Please clarify if these descriptions represent the same duration parameters for both hazards. Note that Period of Inundation is the term utilized and described in NEI 16-05. |
| | Response: There is no intended significant difference. In the case of LIP, the term Duration of Significant Flooding was intended to convey the fact that the durations from the FHRR are for time above door thresholds or floor levels as opposed to a duration of any flooding or ponding on site. |
| | * Associated Effects o Based on the description of Associated Effects parameters throughout the MSA submittal, particularly in Tables 3-1 for LIP, and 3-2 for PMSS, with associated notes, the licensee considers several types of debris, particularly in the footnotes. However, each of the debris categories (e.g. wind generated debris, waterborne debris, and sediment debris, etc.) are not consistently addressed and supported between the evaluated hazards. Please list and explain the various types of debris considered for LIP and PMSS flood hazards. |
| | Response: Debris referred to in Tables 3-1 (LIP) and 3-2 (PMSS), other than Note 6 in both tables, concerns waterborne debris only. With regard to the difference in the description of Associated Effect #3 from Table 3-1 to Table 3-2, there is no technical reason for the difference. |
| | The term debris was removed in Table 3-2 Associated Effect #3 to be consistent with the 1 |
|
| |
|
| in NEI 16-05.
| | referenced Table 3-2 Note 3, which refers to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loading. In Table 3-2, sediment and debris loading (which are essentially synonymous in this context) and waterborne projectiles are discussed in Associated Effect #4 and #5 and Notes 4 and 5 respectively. The MSA would have been more consistent if a similar change was made in Table 3-1. |
| Response: There is no intended significant difference. In the case of LIP, the term "Duration of Significant Flooding" was intended to convey the fact that the durations from the FHRR are for time above door thresholds or floor levels as opposed to a duration of any flooding or ponding on site.
| | The statement in the executive summary PMSS flooding delays access to the site for debris removal and deployment of portable equipment is only intended to reflect the overall impact of the storm surge with regard to implementation of FLEX strategies. Debris removal in this context is for wind generated debris; removal of which is considered by our FLEX Program. It is not intended to include waterborne debris, consistent in that regard with the later statements that such debris is not a concern for the Seabrook site. This is true for Note 6 in Table 3-1 and 3-2 as well. The note is intended to address the Associated Effect of potential concurrent high wind conditions and to reflect that the FLEX Program considers removal of wind generated debris. |
| * Associated Effects o Based on the description of Associated Effects parameters throughout the MSA submittal, particularly in Tables 3-1 for LIP, and 3-2 for PMSS, with associated notes, the licensee considers several types of debris, particularly in the footnotes. However, each of the debris categories (e.g. wind generated debris, waterborne debris, and sediment debris, etc.) are not consistently addressed and supported between the evaluated hazards. Please list and explain the various types of debris considered for LIP and PMSS flood hazards.
| |
| Response: Debris referred to in Tables 3-1 (LIP) and 3-2 (PMSS), other than Note 6 in both tables, concerns waterborne debris only. With regard to the difference in the description of Associated Effect #3 from Table 3-1 to Table 3-2, there is no technical reason for the difference. The term debris was removed in Table 3-2 Associated Effect #3 to be consistent with the 2referenced Table 3-2 Note 3, which refers to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loading. In Table 3-2, sediment and debris loading (which are essentially synonymous in this context) and waterborne projectiles are discussed in Associated Effect #4 and #5 and Notes 4 and 5 respectively. The MSA would have been more consistent if a similar change was made in Table 3-1. The statement in the executive summary "PMSS flooding delays access to the site for debris removal and deployment of portable equipment" is only intended to reflect the overall impact of the storm surge with regard to implementation of FLEX strategies. Debris removal in this context is for wind generated debris; removal of which is considered by our FLEX Program. It is not intended to include waterborne debris, consistent in that regard with the later statements that such debris is not a concern for the Seabrook site. This is true for Note 6 in Table 3-1 and 3-2 as well. The note is intended to address the Associated Effect of potential concurrent high wind conditions and to reflect that the FLEX Program considers removal of wind generated debris.
| |
| The debris referred to in Note 6 is wind generated, not waterborne. | | The debris referred to in Note 6 is wind generated, not waterborne. |
| o MSA Table 3-2 indicate that sedimentation was not considered significant (bounded). Please clarify on how the sediment load coming from offsite as part of the PMSS analysis was estimated, given Note 4 in Table 3-2, and the discussion of drainage area. Response: Sedimentation is not a concern for the PMSS event. During the PMSS, there is no standing water on site. However, water does enter the site from overtopping waves. It is assumed that sediment will be mobilized and transported in Hampton Harbor during the hurricane event, both as bedload transport near the bottom and suspended particles above the bedload movement. However, near the surface, the water column will be relatively sediment free Therefore, minimal sediment will be carried onto the site (in the PA) by the overtopping waves at the peak of the event. The overtopped water will then flow around the site's mostly paved surfaces, so there is little opportunity to mobilize any other sediments. | | o MSA Table 3-2 indicate that sedimentation was not considered significant (bounded). Please clarify on how the sediment load coming from offsite as part of the PMSS analysis was estimated, given Note 4 in Table 3-2, and the discussion of drainage area. |
| If you have questions or need clarification on the questions above, please let me know. Also, please provide an estimated response date. | | Response: Sedimentation is not a concern for the PMSS event. During the PMSS, there is no standing water on site. However, water does enter the site from overtopping waves. It is assumed that sediment will be mobilized and transported in Hampton Harbor during the hurricane event, both as bedload transport near the bottom and suspended particles above the bedload movement. However, near the surface, the water column will be relatively sediment free Therefore, minimal sediment will be carried onto the site (in the PA) by the overtopping waves at the peak of the event. The overtopped water will then flow around the sites mostly paved surfaces, so there is little opportunity to mobilize any other sediments. |
| | | If you have questions or need clarification on the questions above, please let me know. Also, please provide an estimated response date. |
| Thanks | | Thanks Frankie G. Vega, P.E. |
| | | Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12 2 |
| Frankie G. Vega, P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12 | |
|
| |
|
| Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3724 Mail Envelope Properties (68856126dfe04fb7a690723b70a61b36) | | Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3724 Mail Envelope Properties (68856126dfe04fb7a690723b70a61b36) |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| [External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSA Sent Date: 9/11/2017 8:39:53 AM Received Date: 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM From: Thomas, Christine Created By: Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com Recipients: "Vega, Frankie" <Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov>
| | [External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSA Sent Date: 9/11/2017 8:39:53 AM Received Date: 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM From: Thomas, Christine Created By: Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com Recipients: |
| Tracking Status: None | | "Vega, Frankie" <Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov> |
| | | Tracking Status: None Post Office: nexteraenergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4611 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: |
| Post Office: nexteraenergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4611 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM | | Recipients Received:}} |
| | |
| Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:}} | |
Letter Sequence Request |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARNRC 2017-0037, High Frequency Seismic Evaluation Confirmation Report2017-08-0202 August 2017
High Frequency Seismic Evaluation Confirmation Report
Project stage: Request
ML17230A0882017-08-10010 August 2017
Submittal of High Frequency Supplement for Information Per 10CFR50.54(f) Re Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
Project stage: Supplement
ML17234A4782017-08-22022 August 2017
Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report for the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Information - NEI 12-06, Appendix H, Revision 2, H.4.4 Path 4: GMRS ≪ 2xSSE
Project stage: Request
JAFP-17-0083, Report of Full Compliance with March 12, 2012, Commission Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events2017-08-29029 August 2017
James a Fitzpatrick, Report of Full Compliance with March 12, 2012, Commission Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events
Project stage: Other
ML17244A2692017-08-29029 August 2017
Catawba Nuclear Station High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Re Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima D
Project stage: Supplement
ML17256A7752017-09-11011 September 2017
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Seabrook Flooding MSA
Project stage: Request
MNS-17-040, (Mns), Units 1 and 2 - Supplement to the High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force ..2017-09-27027 September 2017
(Mns), Units 1 and 2 - Supplement to the High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force ..
Project stage: Supplement
ML17291A7082017-10-23023 October 2017
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML17277B1092017-10-23023 October 2017
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML17310B5312017-11-16016 November 2017
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-Evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML17306A4842017-11-29029 November 2017
Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessment
Project stage: Other
NL-17-1889, NEI 12-06, Appendix H, Revision 4, H.4.5 Path 5: GMRS Greater than 2 X SSE, Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report for the New Seismic Hazard Information2017-12-0505 December 2017
NEI 12-06, Appendix H, Revision 4, H.4.5 Path 5: GMRS Greater than 2 X SSE, Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report for the New Seismic Hazard Information
Project stage: Request
ML17349A9912017-12-21021 December 2017
Units 1 and 2 - Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-Evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC Nos. MF7843 and MF7844, ...
Project stage: Approval
CNS-17-058, Supplement to the High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukus2017-12-28028 December 2017
Supplement to the High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushi
Project stage: Supplement
ML17313A8812018-01-22022 January 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC Nos. MF7809 and MF7810; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Approval
ML18017A1212018-01-30030 January 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML18033A2092018-02-0707 February 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-Evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML18040A4542018-02-20020 February 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-Evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML18068A6542018-03-22022 March 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Re-Evaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
CNL-18-007, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Supplemental Information2018-04-10010 April 2018
Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Supplemental Information
Project stage: Request
ML18115A5082018-04-30030 April 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML18130A7502018-05-0909 May 2018
Report of Compliance with March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements of Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events
Project stage: Request
ML18159A2892018-06-13013 June 2018
Staff Review of Mitigation Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Develop in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter
Project stage: Approval
NL-18-0684, Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Supplemental Information Regarding NEI 12-06. Appendix H. Revision 4. H.4.5 Path 5 Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report2018-06-25025 June 2018
Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Supplemental Information Regarding NEI 12-06. Appendix H. Revision 4. H.4.5 Path 5 Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report
Project stage: Supplement
ML18180A3142018-07-10010 July 2018
Seismic Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessment (CAC Nos. MF7888 and MF7889; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Other
ML18156A1512018-07-12012 July 2018
Seismic Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessment (CAC Nos. MF7891 and MF7892; EPID L-21016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Other
ML18184A2732018-07-18018 July 2018
Staff Review of Mitigation Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC No. MF7819; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Approval
ML18173A1652018-07-19019 July 2018
Staff Review of Mitigation Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC No. MF7828; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Approval
ML18207A8542018-08-14014 August 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(F) Letter
Project stage: Approval
ML18236A1912018-08-29029 August 2018
Staff Review of Mitigation Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC No. MF7875; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006
Project stage: Approval
ML18249A1692018-09-0707 September 2018
Seismic Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessment (CAC Nos. MF7800 and MF7801; EPID L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Other
ML18262A4152018-09-27027 September 2018
Staff Review of Mitigating Strategies Assessment Report of the Impact of the Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Developed in Response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Letter (CAC No. MF7893; EPID No. L-2016-JLD-0006)
Project stage: Approval
2018-02-20
[Table View] |
|
|---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24285A1682024-10-11011 October 2024
Email Response: LTR-24-0212 David Lochbaum Letter - Public Access to Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Materials - Seabrook ASR
ML24149A3532024-05-24024 May 2024
Change in Estimated Review Schedule for Nextera Common Emergency Plan Amendment
ML24122C6922024-05-0101 May 2024
NextEra Fleet EP Amendment - Demonstration Drill
ML24115A2362024-03-28028 March 2024
Acceptance Review: Alternative to the Requirements of the ASME Code for Examination of Control Rod Drive Mechanism (Rod) Housing H-4 Canopy Seal Weld
ML23173A1522023-06-22022 June 2023
Request for Additional Information NextEra Fleet Emergency Plan Amendment Request
ML23156A3042023-05-31031 May 2023
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Remove Period of Applicability from Pressure Temperature Limits and Low Temperature Over Pressure Protection Curves
ML23109A1862023-04-19019 April 2023
And Turkey Point – Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Proposed Alternative to Asme Section XI Authorizing Implementation of Asme Code Case N-752-1
ML23066A1892023-03-0303 March 2023
OEDO-22-00419: Email Dated 3-3-2023 to Petitioner on Seabrook ASR Petition
ML23066A0892023-02-24024 February 2023
OEDO-22-00419 - Email Dated 02/24/2023 to Petitioner on Seabrook Unit 1 ASR Petition
ML23020A9392023-01-19019 January 2023
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Revise Cooling Tower Service Water Loop or Cell Requirements (EPID L-2022-LLA-0183) (Email)
ML23011A3082023-01-11011 January 2023
Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request 4RA-22-001 (L-2022-LLR-0074)
ML22341A0012022-12-0606 December 2022
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Request 4RA-22-001, Proposed Alternative in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2)
ML22333A7452022-11-22022 November 2022
OEDO-22-00419 - Email: C-10 Response on PRB Initial Assessment - C-10 Petition on Seabrook ASR Concrete Degradation
ML22287A1472022-10-13013 October 2022
2.026 Petition Screen-in Email
ML22228A0552022-08-15015 August 2022
Request for Additional Information Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report Review
ML22200A1082022-07-19019 July 2022
Acceptance Review for TSTF-577 Amendment
ML24285A2022022-07-0202 July 2022
Email Response - LTR-24-0212 - Patricia Skibbee - President C-10 Board of Directors - David Lochbaum
ML22153A4152022-05-31031 May 2022
Request for Additional Information Re 120V Inverter LAR from TS Branch - Final
ML22116A2442022-04-26026 April 2022
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Request 3IR-18 and 3IR-19 for End of Third 10-Year ISI Interval for Examinations with Limited Coverage
ML22048B5522022-02-17017 February 2022
LTR-22-0010 Reply to Geoff Gilbert Email Concern About Seabrook Station Concrete Degradation
ML22062B6642022-02-0707 February 2022
Request for Additional Information 120V Inverter LAR from the Electrical Branch
ML22063A0002022-01-25025 January 2022
Requests for Additional Information from Risk Branch Regarding 120V Inverter LAR
ML22020A2542022-01-20020 January 2022
LTR-22-0010 Geoff Gilbert, E-mail Concern About Seabrook Station Concrete Degradation
ML21097A2512021-04-0707 April 2021
Request for Additional Information Regarding Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report Review for RFO 20 (EPID L-2020-LRO-0066) (Email)
ML21054A0482021-02-23023 February 2021
Request for Additional Information Regarding Heat Flux Hot Channel Requirement Amendment Request
ML20343A0942020-12-0303 December 2020
Request for Additional Information Regarding Seabrook (COVID-19) Part 73 Force-on-Force Exemption Request (L-2020-LLE-0219)
ML20273A2812020-09-22022 September 2020
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action License Amendment Request to Resolve Non-Conservative Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor Requiments
ML20258A1502020-09-14014 September 2020
Request for Additional Information Related to Seabrook License Amendment Request Regarding One-Time Change to the AC Sources Operating TS
ML20260H4932020-09-11011 September 2020
NRR E-mail Capture - Comanche Peak - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action - Request to Use Later Code Edition of ASME OM Code
ML20230A2962020-08-14014 August 2020
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action License Amendment Request to Allow a One-Time Change to the AC Sources Operating TS
ML20167A1842020-06-11011 June 2020
Request for Additional Information Related to Seabrook License Amendment Request Regarding TSTF-411 and TSTF-418 (L-2019-LLA-0237)
ML20124A0012020-05-0101 May 2020
Cancellation of Call with Seabrook on Steam Generator Tube Inspections
ML20114E1592020-04-23023 April 2020
Email and Request for Additional Information Related to Seabrook License Amendment Request to Degraded Voltage Time Delay Setpoint (L-2020-LLA-0012)
ML20101L0402020-04-10010 April 2020
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Request to Use Code Case OMN-13 with 2012 Edition of the OM Code
ML20101N0932020-04-10010 April 2020
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re Relief Request to Defer ASME Inspections Due COVID-19 (EPIDs L-2020-LLR-0055, -56, and -57)
ML20101H3912020-04-0808 April 2020
Verbal Authorization for Seabrook Relief Request 3IIR-7
ML20087K8262020-03-27027 March 2020
Upcoming Steam Generator Tube Inservice Inspection
ML20063J9792020-02-28028 February 2020
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Revise Degraded Voltage Time Delay Setpoint
ML19347C6732019-12-13013 December 2019
Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-418
ML19296D9122019-10-23023 October 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to Seabrook Inverter Amendment (L-2019-LLA-0216)
ML19295F5422019-10-15015 October 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Revise Onsite Power Distribution Requirements
ML19275G7832019-10-0101 October 2019
Limited Appearance Statement from New Hampshire State Representative, Robert Harb Regarding the Seabrook Station Unit 1 License Amendment Application
ML19270E6512019-09-27027 September 2019
Limited Appearance Statement from Joanna Hammond Regarding the Seabrook Station Unit 1 License Amendment Application
ML19270E6542019-09-26026 September 2019
Limited Appearance Statement from Brian Campbell Regarding the Seabrook Station Unit 1 License Amendment Application
ML19196A3592019-07-15015 July 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Revise the Emergency Core Cooling System Accumulator Technical Specifications
ML19169A2412019-06-13013 June 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Relief Requests for the Containment Building Spray Pump Flow and Vibration Testing (Epids L-2019-LLR-00 and L-2019-LLR-00)
ML19162A0662019-06-0404 June 2019
Reply to Mr. Rick Jakious'S E-mail of 5-29-2019 to Stephen B. Comley Sr., We the People with Attachments
ML19112A1782019-04-22022 April 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Point Beach; Seabrook; Turkey Point - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-563
ML19101A4042019-04-11011 April 2019
NRR E-mail Capture - Point Beach; Seabrook; St. Lucie; Turkey Point - Acceptance of Licensing Action Relief Request to Use Encoded Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination Techniques for Ferritic and Austenitic Welds
ML19070A2382019-03-10010 March 2019
LTR-19-0088 Maura Healey, Attorney General, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ltr NextEras Requests for a License Amendment and Twenty-year Extension Prior to Issuance of a Final Decision in Adjudicatory Hearing on Concrete Degradation at
2024-05-24
[Table view] |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Thomas, Christine <Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:40 AM To: Vega, Frankie
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSA Good morning Frankie, Please see responses in red.
- Regards, Christine From: Vega, Frankie [1]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:45 PM To: Thomas, Christine
Subject:
Seabrook MSA CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL Hello Mrs. Thomas; The technical staff is currently reviewing Seabrooks MSA and has identified few areas in which clarifications are needed in order to complete the review. Since these are relatively simple clarifications, no formal responses are needed at this moment so replying to this email would work for the staff.
- Flood Event Duration o Between MSA Tables 3-1 and 3-2 the licensee uses the terms Period of Inundation for storm surge, and Duration of Significant Flooding for LIP. It is not clear if these terms are intended to be different or synonymous. Please clarify if these descriptions represent the same duration parameters for both hazards. Note that Period of Inundation is the term utilized and described in NEI 16-05.
Response: There is no intended significant difference. In the case of LIP, the term Duration of Significant Flooding was intended to convey the fact that the durations from the FHRR are for time above door thresholds or floor levels as opposed to a duration of any flooding or ponding on site.
- Associated Effects o Based on the description of Associated Effects parameters throughout the MSA submittal, particularly in Tables 3-1 for LIP, and 3-2 for PMSS, with associated notes, the licensee considers several types of debris, particularly in the footnotes. However, each of the debris categories (e.g. wind generated debris, waterborne debris, and sediment debris, etc.) are not consistently addressed and supported between the evaluated hazards. Please list and explain the various types of debris considered for LIP and PMSS flood hazards.
Response: Debris referred to in Tables 3-1 (LIP) and 3-2 (PMSS), other than Note 6 in both tables, concerns waterborne debris only. With regard to the difference in the description of Associated Effect #3 from Table 3-1 to Table 3-2, there is no technical reason for the difference.
The term debris was removed in Table 3-2 Associated Effect #3 to be consistent with the 1
referenced Table 3-2 Note 3, which refers to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loading. In Table 3-2, sediment and debris loading (which are essentially synonymous in this context) and waterborne projectiles are discussed in Associated Effect #4 and #5 and Notes 4 and 5 respectively. The MSA would have been more consistent if a similar change was made in Table 3-1.
The statement in the executive summary PMSS flooding delays access to the site for debris removal and deployment of portable equipment is only intended to reflect the overall impact of the storm surge with regard to implementation of FLEX strategies. Debris removal in this context is for wind generated debris; removal of which is considered by our FLEX Program. It is not intended to include waterborne debris, consistent in that regard with the later statements that such debris is not a concern for the Seabrook site. This is true for Note 6 in Table 3-1 and 3-2 as well. The note is intended to address the Associated Effect of potential concurrent high wind conditions and to reflect that the FLEX Program considers removal of wind generated debris.
The debris referred to in Note 6 is wind generated, not waterborne.
o MSA Table 3-2 indicate that sedimentation was not considered significant (bounded). Please clarify on how the sediment load coming from offsite as part of the PMSS analysis was estimated, given Note 4 in Table 3-2, and the discussion of drainage area.
Response: Sedimentation is not a concern for the PMSS event. During the PMSS, there is no standing water on site. However, water does enter the site from overtopping waves. It is assumed that sediment will be mobilized and transported in Hampton Harbor during the hurricane event, both as bedload transport near the bottom and suspended particles above the bedload movement. However, near the surface, the water column will be relatively sediment free Therefore, minimal sediment will be carried onto the site (in the PA) by the overtopping waves at the peak of the event. The overtopped water will then flow around the sites mostly paved surfaces, so there is little opportunity to mobilize any other sediments.
If you have questions or need clarification on the questions above, please let me know. Also, please provide an estimated response date.
Thanks Frankie G. Vega, P.E.
Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: O-13H12 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3724 Mail Envelope Properties (68856126dfe04fb7a690723b70a61b36)
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Seabrook MSA Sent Date: 9/11/2017 8:39:53 AM Received Date: 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM From: Thomas, Christine Created By: Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com Recipients:
"Vega, Frankie" <Frankie.Vega@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: nexteraenergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4611 9/11/2017 8:40:04 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
