ML14153A025: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML14153A025
| number = ML14153A025
| issue date = 06/20/2014
| issue date = 06/20/2014
| title = Meeting Summary - Public Meeting on May 16, 2014, to Discuss Xcel Energy'S Flood Hazard Reevaluation Extension Request for the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants (TAC Nos. MF3651, MF3629 and MF3630)
| title = Meeting Summary - Public Meeting on May 16, 2014, to Discuss Xcel Energy'S Flood Hazard Reevaluation Extension Request for the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants
| author name = Beltz T A
| author name = Beltz T
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000263, 05000282, 05000306
| docket = 05000263, 05000282, 05000306
| license number = DPR-022, DPR-042, DPR-060
| license number = DPR-022, DPR-042, DPR-060
| contact person = Beltz T A
| contact person = Beltz T
| case reference number = TAC MF3629, TAC MF3630, TAC MF3651
| case reference number = TAC MF3629, TAC MF3630, TAC MF3651
| package number = ML14153A026
| package number = ML14153A026
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
| project = TAC:MF3629, TAC:MF3630, TAC:MF3651
| project = TAC:MF3629, TAC:MF3630, TAC:MF3651
| stage = RAI
| stage = Meeting
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:LICENSEE: UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 20, 2014 Northern States Power Company -Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy FACILITIES: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2  
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 20, 2014 LICENSEE:      Northern States Power Company - Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy FACILITIES:     Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SUMMARY OF THE MAY 16,2014, PUBLIC MEETING WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY-MINNESOTA (NSPM) TO DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MF3651, MF3629, AND MF3630) On May 16, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives of NSPM (the licensee) via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's request for extension of its flood hazard re-evaluation (FHR) report submittal date for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Prairie Island). The objectives of the meeting were for NSPM to describe its FHR scope of analysis, the basis in development of its proposed schedule, the need for extension, and to address NRC staff questions. Enclosure 1 to this meeting summary contains the list of participants. The licensee's presentation followed handout material (docketed at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14153A024) provided during the meeting. A summary of the topics discussed at the public meeting is provided below. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Data The NRC staff expressed concern with the 3 -4 months allotted in the licensee's schedule to process the data provided by the USACE in response to NSPM's technical assistance request. NSPM stated that it requested hydrograph data by each dam, thus leading to an expectation that it would receive at least 19 hydrographs. The NRC staff indicated that the USACE would not be providing one hydrograph per dam. Therefore, NSPM will take an action to re-evaluate its estimated 3 -4 month schedule duration considering new information on the number of hydrographs being provided by the USACE. General Questions The NRC staff questioned if the site-specific probable maximum precipitation (PMP) evaluation discussed in the licensee's presentation was similar to the work being performed by Applied Weather Associates (AWA). NSPM states that AWA is the subcontractor performing the PMP evaluation work. The NRC staff requested information regarding the status of other flooding hazards. The licensee stated that the Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) at Monticello was complete. Interim Actions The NRC staff requested the status of interim actions. The staff asked the licensee if the interim actions were already started and inquired about the duration of the activity to develop interim actions on the schedule, which extends from July 2014 to the time when the USACE data is received, and whether that duration could be shortened. The licensee stated that the interim actions are in a conceptual stage at this point and that it will begin developing formalized interim action options this summer (July 2014). The NRC staff asked about the need for interim actions based on the results of the calculations completed as of the public meeting. NSPM stated that no interim actions are required based on currently completed calculations. The calculations being re-evaluated during the extension time have conservative results and interim actions will be developed, if necessary, when those calculations are complete. The NRC staff questioned if NSPM planned to work on interim actions while the calculations were being completed. NSPM stated that it will evaluate the need for interim actions while the calculations are being prepared and results are obtained. The NRC staff asked NSPM to provide a plan for developing interim actions to help provide a basis for granting the extension. The type of information the NRC expects in the plan is how NSPM will determine the need for interim actions and implement the interim actions, what would the plan include, and what would trigger implementation, if necessary. The NRC clarified that the NRC is not expecting specifics on what the actions will be, just the plan for how the interim actions will be developed. NSPM agreed to provide the plan for developing interim actions. NSPM also agreed to discuss the timeline for providing a plan to the NRC in a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC Project Manager. In a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC staff, NSPM indicated that it would provide an additional response by June 13, 2014, to include 1) a review of its schedule to determine if the task related to evaluating the USACE data should be changed based on the NRC staff's statement that the USACE will not be providing hydrographs per dam, and 2) the plan for developing interim actions. The licensee's response was provided on June 13, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14168A018), and is included as Enclosure 2. Actions NSPM will review its current schedule to determine if the assigned timeframe for evaluation of the USACE data may be changed based on USACE not providing hydrographs per dam. NSPM will also provide an interim action plan to the NRC staff. Before the meeting adjourned, all meeting participants were given the opportunity to comment on any aspects of the meeting. Mrs. Ruth Thomas had the following questions (responses from the NRC staff are provided): 1. How are the evaluations provided by the USACE? The USACE typically does not provide the data and evaluations directly to private entities due to security concerns. the NRC staff. 2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute -the Mississippi River. No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided. Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov. Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306  
 
==SUMMARY==
OF THE MAY 16,2014, PUBLIC MEETING WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY- MINNESOTA (NSPM) TO DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MF3651, MF3629, AND MF3630)
On May 16, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives of NSPM (the licensee) via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's request for extension of its flood hazard re-evaluation (FHR) report submittal date for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Prairie Island). The objectives of the meeting were for NSPM to describe its FHR scope of analysis, the basis in development of its proposed schedule, the need for extension, and to address NRC staff questions. Enclosure 1 to this meeting summary contains the list of participants.
The licensee's presentation followed handout material (docketed at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14153A024) provided during the meeting. A summary of the topics discussed at the public meeting is provided below.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Data The NRC staff expressed concern with the 3 - 4 months allotted in the licensee's schedule to process the data provided by the USACE in response to NSPM's technical assistance request.
NSPM stated that it requested hydrograph data by each dam, thus leading to an expectation that it would receive at least 19 hydrographs. The NRC staff indicated that the USACE would not be providing one hydrograph per dam. Therefore, NSPM will take an action to re-evaluate its estimated 3 - 4 month schedule duration considering new information on the number of hydrographs being provided by the USACE.
General Questions The NRC staff questioned if the site-specific probable maximum precipitation (PMP) evaluation discussed in the licensee's presentation was similar to the work being performed by Applied Weather Associates (AWA). NSPM states that AWA is the subcontractor performing the PMP evaluation work.
The NRC staff requested information regarding the status of other flooding hazards. The licensee stated that the Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) at Monticello was complete.
 
Interim Actions The NRC staff requested the status of interim actions. The staff asked the licensee if the interim actions were already started and inquired about the duration of the activity to develop interim actions on the schedule, which extends from July 2014 to the time when the USACE data is received, and whether that duration could be shortened. The licensee stated that the interim actions are in a conceptual stage at this point and that it will begin developing formalized interim action options this summer (July 2014).
The NRC staff asked about the need for interim actions based on the results of the calculations completed as of the public meeting. NSPM stated that no interim actions are required based on currently completed calculations. The calculations being re-evaluated during the extension time have conservative results and interim actions will be developed, if necessary, when those calculations are complete.
The NRC staff questioned if NSPM planned to work on interim actions while the calculations were being completed. NSPM stated that it will evaluate the need for interim actions while the calculations are being prepared and results are obtained.
The NRC staff asked NSPM to provide a plan for developing interim actions to help provide a basis for granting the extension. The type of information the NRC expects in the plan is how NSPM will determine the need for interim actions and implement the interim actions, what would the plan include, and what would trigger implementation, if necessary. The NRC clarified that the NRC is not expecting specifics on what the actions will be, just the plan for how the interim actions will be developed. NSPM agreed to provide the plan for developing interim actions.
NSPM also agreed to discuss the timeline for providing a plan to the NRC in a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC Project Manager. In a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC staff, NSPM indicated that it would provide an additional response by June 13, 2014, to include
: 1) a review of its schedule to determine if the task related to evaluating the USACE data should be changed based on the NRC staff's statement that the USACE will not be providing hydrographs per dam, and 2) the plan for developing interim actions. The licensee's response was provided on June 13, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14168A018), and is included as .
Actions NSPM will review its current schedule to determine if the assigned timeframe for evaluation of the USACE data may be changed based on USACE not providing hydrographs per dam.
NSPM will also provide an interim action plan to the NRC staff.
Before the meeting adjourned, all meeting participants were given the opportunity to comment on any aspects of the meeting.
Mrs. Ruth Thomas had the following questions (responses from the NRC staff are provided):
: 1. How are the evaluations provided by the USACE? The USACE typically does not provide the data and evaluations directly to private entities due to security concerns.
 
the NRC staff.
: 2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute - the Mississippi River.
No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov.
                                          ~_£ Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306


==Enclosures:==
==Enclosures:==
: 1. List of Participants 2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION (NRC) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY-MINNESOTA (NSPM) DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION REPORT EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 NAME Terry Beltz Aide Capristo Peter Chaput Dr. Pablo Gonzalez John Grubb Brad Harvey John Kapitz Rob Kuntz Dan Ludwig Ed Miller Matt Mitchell Marty Murphy Jody Nemcek Carlos Parada Terry Pickens Rick Rohrer Ken See Steve Thomas Scott Wall Brian Zelenak Richard Zyduck ORGANIZATION NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-11 NSPM NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM22 Black & Veatch NSPM NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM13 NSPM NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB4 NSPM N RC/N RR/DORLILPL2-15 NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB4 NSPM NSPM NSPM NSPM NSPM NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM13 Black & Veatch NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-11 NSPM NSPM Additional stakeholders participated by telephone: Mike Kaluzniak Jeff Kitsembel Ruth Thomas Minnesota Public Utility Commission Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Environmentalists Incorporated 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 2 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meteorology Branch 3 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meterorolgy Branch 4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, Project Management Branch 5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Enclosure 1 (l Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall -MP4 Minneapolis, MN 55401 INTRODUCTION On May 16, 2014, the NRC held a public meeting regarding NSPM's Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR) extension requests for Prairie Island and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plants. NSPM requested to complete the FHRRs within 10 months after receiving the USAGE information. The purpose of the public meeting was for the NRC to gain a better understanding of the acceptability/basis of the timeframe for the proposed schedule extension to ensure that the safety aspects were considered. During this meeting, NSPM agreed to follow-up with the NRC on the following two items: 1) NSPM will review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam. 2) NSPM will provide the NRC a plan for developing interim actions. This document provides NSPM's responses to the actions from the May 16th public meeting. The actions are noted below in italics and then followed by the NSPM response. RESPONSE TO ACTIONS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ACTION 1: Review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam. RESPONSE: The task "Evaluate Revised Hydrology from the USAGE Information" includes receiving information from USAGE and determining how best to utilize it in the hydrologic model. Then the team will combine the USAGE hydrographs with site specific PMP values and incorporate failure data known for important dams not operated by USAGE. The 3 to 4 months duration includes time to review the response information from the USAGE and time to seek additional clarification, adjust the model and refine the subbasin modeling if necessary. Benchmarking and calibration of the model will also take place during this time and several iterations are expected in order to get the hydrologic model to accurately reflect the behavior of the watershed during floods and dam failures. At this time, based on the scope of work planned and the uncertainty of what information NSPM will receive from the USAGE, NSPM continues to estimate the task will take 3 to 4 months to complete. Enclosure 2 To the extent possible, all non-USAGE related work will be completed prior receiving the USAGE information to expedite the process once the USAGE information is received. ACTION 2: Provide a plan for developing interim actions for external flooding. RESPONSE: The interim actions will occur in four steps and will be developed in parallel with the refined flood hazard analysis. Step 1: Preparation. This includes assembling and briefing the team, reviewing the flood coping concepts that have been developed to date, and benchmarking another plant that faces similar flood hazards. The assumed flood height and timing will be developed at this stage to guide development of interim actions. These inputs will be validated in step 3. Step 2: Strategies. The second step is the development of strategies to fulfill each of the key safety functions in the event of a flood. The components and site areas that are needed to perform the safety functions will either be located above the assumed flood height or protected from flood water intrusion. The strategies will be assessed by developing an implementation flowchart, and performing walkthroughs. Drafts of implementation procedures will also be developed. Step 3: Validation. The strategies developed in step 2 will be validated when the final flood height and timing results are completed for each flooding mechanism. The validation will check that the flood height and timing that were used to develop the strategies remain bounding. If not, then the strategies will be adjusted as needed. This step will also serve as the trigger to determine whether interim actions are required. Step 4: Implementation. This step will be performed if any flood hazard reevaluation analysis determines that the flood hazard is not fully bounded by the design basis flood. This involves creating formal procedures, requesting and budgeting for plant modifications (if needed) and training personnel on how to manage a beyond design basis flood. The exact schedule will be determined by the number and type (outage or non-outage) of modifications needed to effect the interim actions and training required for the new procedures. Page 2 of 2   the NRC staff. 2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute -the Mississippi River. No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided. Please direct any inquiries to Terry Beltz at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov. IRA/ Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306  
: 1. List of Participants
: 2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ
 
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION (NRC)
AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY- MINNESOTA (NSPM)
DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION REPORT EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 NAME                               ORGANIZATION Terry Beltz                       NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-1 1 Aide Capristo                      NSPM Peter Chaput                      NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM2 2 Dr. Pablo Gonzalez                Black & Veatch John Grubb                        NSPM Brad Harvey                        NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM1 3 John Kapitz                        NSPM Rob Kuntz                          NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB 4 Dan Ludwig                        NSPM Ed Miller                          N RC/N RR/DORLILPL2-1 5 Matt Mitchell                      NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB 4 Marty Murphy                      NSPM Jody Nemcek                        NSPM Carlos Parada                      NSPM Terry Pickens                      NSPM Rick Rohrer                        NSPM Ken See                            NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM1 3 Steve Thomas                      Black & Veatch Scott Wall                        NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-1 1 Brian Zelenak                      NSPM Richard Zyduck                    NSPM Additional stakeholders participated by telephone:
Mike Kaluzniak                     Minnesota Public Utility Commission Jeff Kitsembel                    Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Ruth Thomas                        Environmentalists Incorporated 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 2 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meteorology Branch 3 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meterorolgy Branch 4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, Project Management Branch 5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Enclosure 1
 
(l Xcel Energy                                                     414 Nicollet Mall - MP4 Minneapolis, MN 55401 INTRODUCTION On May 16, 2014, the NRC held a public meeting regarding NSPM's Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR) extension requests for Prairie Island and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plants. NSPM requested to complete the FHRRs within 10 months after receiving the USAGE information. The purpose of the public meeting was for the NRC to gain a better understanding of the acceptability/basis of the timeframe for the proposed schedule extension to ensure that the safety aspects were considered.
During this meeting, NSPM agreed to follow-up with the NRC on the following two items:
: 1) NSPM will review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam.
: 2) NSPM will provide the NRC a plan for developing interim actions.
This document provides NSPM's responses to the actions from the May 16th public meeting. The actions are noted below in italics and then followed by the NSPM response.
RESPONSE TO ACTIONS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ACTION 1: Review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam.
RESPONSE: The task "Evaluate Revised Hydrology from the USAGE Information" includes receiving information from USAGE and determining how best to utilize it in the hydrologic model. Then the team will combine the USAGE hydrographs with site specific PMP values and incorporate failure data known for important dams not operated by USAGE.
The 3 to 4 months duration includes time to review the response information from the USAGE and time to seek additional clarification, adjust the model and refine the subbasin modeling if necessary. Benchmarking and calibration of the model will also take place during this time and several iterations are expected in order to get the hydrologic model to accurately reflect the behavior of the watershed during floods and dam failures. At this time, based on the scope of work planned and the uncertainty of what information NSPM will receive from the USAGE, NSPM continues to estimate the task will take 3 to 4 months to complete.
Enclosure 2
 
To the extent possible, all non-USAGE related work will be completed prior receiving the USAGE information to expedite the process once the USAGE information is received.
ACTION 2: Provide a plan for developing interim actions for external flooding.
RESPONSE: The interim actions will occur in four steps and will be developed in parallel with the refined flood hazard analysis.
Step 1: Preparation. This includes assembling and briefing the team, reviewing the flood coping concepts that have been developed to date, and benchmarking another plant that faces similar flood hazards. The assumed flood height and timing will be developed at this stage to guide development of interim actions. These inputs will be validated in step 3.
Step 2: Strategies. The second step is the development of strategies to fulfill each of the key safety functions in the event of a flood. The components and site areas that are needed to perform the safety functions will either be located above the assumed flood height or protected from flood water intrusion. The strategies will be assessed by developing an implementation flowchart, and performing walkthroughs. Drafts of implementation procedures will also be developed.
Step 3: Validation. The strategies developed in step 2 will be validated when the final flood height and timing results are completed for each flooding mechanism. The validation will check that the flood height and timing that were used to develop the strategies remain bounding. If not, then the strategies will be adjusted as needed. This step will also serve as the trigger to determine whether interim actions are required.
Step 4: Implementation. This step will be performed if any flood hazard reevaluation analysis determines that the flood hazard is not fully bounded by the design basis flood.
This involves creating formal procedures, requesting and budgeting for plant modifications (if needed) and training personnel on how to manage a beyond design basis flood. The exact schedule will be determined by the number and type (outage or non-outage) of modifications needed to effect the interim actions and training required for the new procedures.
Page 2 of 2
 
the NRC staff.
: 2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute - the Mississippi River.
No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided.
Please direct any inquiries to Terry Beltz at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov.
IRA/
Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306


==Enclosures:==
==Enclosures:==
: 1. List of Participants 2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC LPL3-1 R/F RidsNrrDorllpl3-1 Resource RidsNrrLAMHenderson Resource RidsNrrPMMonticello Resource RidsNrrPMPrairielsland Resource RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource RidsAcrsAcnw_MaiiCTR Resource RidsOgcRp Resource RKuntz, NRR/JLD EMiller, NRR PChaput, NRO BHarvey, NRO ADAMS Accession Numbers: Package: ML 14153A026 Meeting Notice: ML 14121A446 Meeting Summary: ML 14153A025 Licensee's Presentation: ML 14153A024 X I E F II R ML 14168A018 ce IY o ow-up esponse: OFFICE LPL3-1/PM LPL3-1/LA JLD/PMB/BC NAME TBeltz MHenderson MMitchell (RKuntz for) DATE 06/02/14 06/02/14 06/09/14 NRO/DSENBC CCook (KErwin for) 06/11/14 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY KSee, NRO JNick, EDO R-Ill JSebrosky, NRR/JLD MMitchell, NRR/JLD CCook, NRO SWall, NRR LPL3-1/BC LPL3-1/PM RCarlson TBeltz 06/17/14 06/20/14}}
: 1. List of Participants
: 2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC           LPL3-1 R/F           RidsAcrsAcnw_MaiiCTR Resource          KSee, NRO RidsNrrDorllpl3-1 Resource             RidsOgcRp Resource                      JNick, EDO R-Ill RidsNrrLAMHenderson Resource           RKuntz, NRR/JLD                         JSebrosky, NRR/JLD RidsNrrPMMonticello Resource          EMiller, NRR                           MMitchell, NRR/JLD RidsNrrPMPrairielsland Resource        PChaput, NRO                           CCook, NRO RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource            BHarvey, NRO                           SWall, NRR ADAMS Accession Numbers:
Package: ML14153A026 Meeting Notice: ML14121A446 Meeting Summary: ML14153A025 Licensee's Presentation: ML14153A024 Xce I Ener~ IY Fo II ow-up Response: ML14168A018 OFFICE       LPL3-1/PM     LPL3-1/LA     JLD/PMB/BC     NRO/DSENBC      LPL3-1/BC      LPL3-1/PM MMitchell      CCook NAME         TBeltz       MHenderson                                     RCarlson      TBeltz (RKuntz for)   (KErwin for)
DATE         06/02/14     06/02/14     06/09/14       06/11/14         06/17/14       06/20/14 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY}}

Latest revision as of 21:18, 19 March 2020

Meeting Summary - Public Meeting on May 16, 2014, to Discuss Xcel Energy'S Flood Hazard Reevaluation Extension Request for the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants
ML14153A025
Person / Time
Site: Monticello, Prairie Island  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/20/2014
From: Beltz T
Plant Licensing Branch III
To:
Beltz T
Shared Package
ML14153A026 List:
References
TAC MF3629, TAC MF3630, TAC MF3651
Download: ML14153A025 (5)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 20, 2014 LICENSEE: Northern States Power Company - Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy FACILITIES: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF THE MAY 16,2014, PUBLIC MEETING WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY- MINNESOTA (NSPM) TO DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MF3651, MF3629, AND MF3630)

On May 16, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives of NSPM (the licensee) via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's request for extension of its flood hazard re-evaluation (FHR) report submittal date for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Prairie Island). The objectives of the meeting were for NSPM to describe its FHR scope of analysis, the basis in development of its proposed schedule, the need for extension, and to address NRC staff questions. Enclosure 1 to this meeting summary contains the list of participants.

The licensee's presentation followed handout material (docketed at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14153A024) provided during the meeting. A summary of the topics discussed at the public meeting is provided below.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Data The NRC staff expressed concern with the 3 - 4 months allotted in the licensee's schedule to process the data provided by the USACE in response to NSPM's technical assistance request.

NSPM stated that it requested hydrograph data by each dam, thus leading to an expectation that it would receive at least 19 hydrographs. The NRC staff indicated that the USACE would not be providing one hydrograph per dam. Therefore, NSPM will take an action to re-evaluate its estimated 3 - 4 month schedule duration considering new information on the number of hydrographs being provided by the USACE.

General Questions The NRC staff questioned if the site-specific probable maximum precipitation (PMP) evaluation discussed in the licensee's presentation was similar to the work being performed by Applied Weather Associates (AWA). NSPM states that AWA is the subcontractor performing the PMP evaluation work.

The NRC staff requested information regarding the status of other flooding hazards. The licensee stated that the Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) at Monticello was complete.

Interim Actions The NRC staff requested the status of interim actions. The staff asked the licensee if the interim actions were already started and inquired about the duration of the activity to develop interim actions on the schedule, which extends from July 2014 to the time when the USACE data is received, and whether that duration could be shortened. The licensee stated that the interim actions are in a conceptual stage at this point and that it will begin developing formalized interim action options this summer (July 2014).

The NRC staff asked about the need for interim actions based on the results of the calculations completed as of the public meeting. NSPM stated that no interim actions are required based on currently completed calculations. The calculations being re-evaluated during the extension time have conservative results and interim actions will be developed, if necessary, when those calculations are complete.

The NRC staff questioned if NSPM planned to work on interim actions while the calculations were being completed. NSPM stated that it will evaluate the need for interim actions while the calculations are being prepared and results are obtained.

The NRC staff asked NSPM to provide a plan for developing interim actions to help provide a basis for granting the extension. The type of information the NRC expects in the plan is how NSPM will determine the need for interim actions and implement the interim actions, what would the plan include, and what would trigger implementation, if necessary. The NRC clarified that the NRC is not expecting specifics on what the actions will be, just the plan for how the interim actions will be developed. NSPM agreed to provide the plan for developing interim actions.

NSPM also agreed to discuss the timeline for providing a plan to the NRC in a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC Project Manager. In a follow-up phone conversation with the NRC staff, NSPM indicated that it would provide an additional response by June 13, 2014, to include

1) a review of its schedule to determine if the task related to evaluating the USACE data should be changed based on the NRC staff's statement that the USACE will not be providing hydrographs per dam, and 2) the plan for developing interim actions. The licensee's response was provided on June 13, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14168A018), and is included as .

Actions NSPM will review its current schedule to determine if the assigned timeframe for evaluation of the USACE data may be changed based on USACE not providing hydrographs per dam.

NSPM will also provide an interim action plan to the NRC staff.

Before the meeting adjourned, all meeting participants were given the opportunity to comment on any aspects of the meeting.

Mrs. Ruth Thomas had the following questions (responses from the NRC staff are provided):

1. How are the evaluations provided by the USACE? The USACE typically does not provide the data and evaluations directly to private entities due to security concerns.

the NRC staff.

2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute - the Mississippi River.

No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided.

Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov.

~_£ Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants
2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION (NRC)

AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY- MINNESOTA (NSPM)

DISCUSS THE FLOOD HAZARD RE-EVALUATION REPORT EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 NAME ORGANIZATION Terry Beltz NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-1 1 Aide Capristo NSPM Peter Chaput NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM2 2 Dr. Pablo Gonzalez Black & Veatch John Grubb NSPM Brad Harvey NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM1 3 John Kapitz NSPM Rob Kuntz NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB 4 Dan Ludwig NSPM Ed Miller N RC/N RR/DORLILPL2-1 5 Matt Mitchell NRC/NRR/JLD/PMB 4 Marty Murphy NSPM Jody Nemcek NSPM Carlos Parada NSPM Terry Pickens NSPM Rick Rohrer NSPM Ken See NRC/NRO/DSEA/RHM1 3 Steve Thomas Black & Veatch Scott Wall NRC/NRR/DORLILPL3-1 1 Brian Zelenak NSPM Richard Zyduck NSPM Additional stakeholders participated by telephone:

Mike Kaluzniak Minnesota Public Utility Commission Jeff Kitsembel Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Ruth Thomas Environmentalists Incorporated 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 2 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meteorology Branch 3 Office of New Reactors, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Hydrology and Meterorolgy Branch 4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, Project Management Branch 5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Enclosure 1

(l Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall - MP4 Minneapolis, MN 55401 INTRODUCTION On May 16, 2014, the NRC held a public meeting regarding NSPM's Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR) extension requests for Prairie Island and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plants. NSPM requested to complete the FHRRs within 10 months after receiving the USAGE information. The purpose of the public meeting was for the NRC to gain a better understanding of the acceptability/basis of the timeframe for the proposed schedule extension to ensure that the safety aspects were considered.

During this meeting, NSPM agreed to follow-up with the NRC on the following two items:

1) NSPM will review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam.
2) NSPM will provide the NRC a plan for developing interim actions.

This document provides NSPM's responses to the actions from the May 16th public meeting. The actions are noted below in italics and then followed by the NSPM response.

RESPONSE TO ACTIONS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ACTION 1: Review the schedule to see if the task related to evaluating the USAGE data should be changed based on the NRC's indication that the USAGE will not be providing hydrographs per dam.

RESPONSE: The task "Evaluate Revised Hydrology from the USAGE Information" includes receiving information from USAGE and determining how best to utilize it in the hydrologic model. Then the team will combine the USAGE hydrographs with site specific PMP values and incorporate failure data known for important dams not operated by USAGE.

The 3 to 4 months duration includes time to review the response information from the USAGE and time to seek additional clarification, adjust the model and refine the subbasin modeling if necessary. Benchmarking and calibration of the model will also take place during this time and several iterations are expected in order to get the hydrologic model to accurately reflect the behavior of the watershed during floods and dam failures. At this time, based on the scope of work planned and the uncertainty of what information NSPM will receive from the USAGE, NSPM continues to estimate the task will take 3 to 4 months to complete.

Enclosure 2

To the extent possible, all non-USAGE related work will be completed prior receiving the USAGE information to expedite the process once the USAGE information is received.

ACTION 2: Provide a plan for developing interim actions for external flooding.

RESPONSE: The interim actions will occur in four steps and will be developed in parallel with the refined flood hazard analysis.

Step 1: Preparation. This includes assembling and briefing the team, reviewing the flood coping concepts that have been developed to date, and benchmarking another plant that faces similar flood hazards. The assumed flood height and timing will be developed at this stage to guide development of interim actions. These inputs will be validated in step 3.

Step 2: Strategies. The second step is the development of strategies to fulfill each of the key safety functions in the event of a flood. The components and site areas that are needed to perform the safety functions will either be located above the assumed flood height or protected from flood water intrusion. The strategies will be assessed by developing an implementation flowchart, and performing walkthroughs. Drafts of implementation procedures will also be developed.

Step 3: Validation. The strategies developed in step 2 will be validated when the final flood height and timing results are completed for each flooding mechanism. The validation will check that the flood height and timing that were used to develop the strategies remain bounding. If not, then the strategies will be adjusted as needed. This step will also serve as the trigger to determine whether interim actions are required.

Step 4: Implementation. This step will be performed if any flood hazard reevaluation analysis determines that the flood hazard is not fully bounded by the design basis flood.

This involves creating formal procedures, requesting and budgeting for plant modifications (if needed) and training personnel on how to manage a beyond design basis flood. The exact schedule will be determined by the number and type (outage or non-outage) of modifications needed to effect the interim actions and training required for the new procedures.

Page 2 of 2

the NRC staff.

2. Do the evaluations include groundwater and aquifers for both Monticello and Prairie Island? The evaluations being submitted by NSPM do include certain aspects of the groundwater and aquifers for both facilities. Also, the respective watersheds for Monticello and Prairie Island are very large and, therefore, will have some specific differences. They do share a significant common attribute - the Mississippi River.

No additional feedback regarding the meeting was provided.

Please direct any inquiries to Terry Beltz at 301-415-3049 or e-mail Terry.Beltz@nrc.gov.

IRA/

Terry A. Beltz, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-263, 50-282, and 50-306

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants
2. Xcel Energy Follow-up Response cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPL3-1 R/F RidsAcrsAcnw_MaiiCTR Resource KSee, NRO RidsNrrDorllpl3-1 Resource RidsOgcRp Resource JNick, EDO R-Ill RidsNrrLAMHenderson Resource RKuntz, NRR/JLD JSebrosky, NRR/JLD RidsNrrPMMonticello Resource EMiller, NRR MMitchell, NRR/JLD RidsNrrPMPrairielsland Resource PChaput, NRO CCook, NRO RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource BHarvey, NRO SWall, NRR ADAMS Accession Numbers:

Package: ML14153A026 Meeting Notice: ML14121A446 Meeting Summary: ML14153A025 Licensee's Presentation: ML14153A024 Xce I Ener~ IY Fo II ow-up Response: ML14168A018 OFFICE LPL3-1/PM LPL3-1/LA JLD/PMB/BC NRO/DSENBC LPL3-1/BC LPL3-1/PM MMitchell CCook NAME TBeltz MHenderson RCarlson TBeltz (RKuntz for) (KErwin for)

DATE 06/02/14 06/02/14 06/09/14 06/11/14 06/17/14 06/20/14 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14153A025&oldid=2633973"