ML083650382

Summary of Conference Call with Nei/Industry on December 23, 2008 to Discuss Draft NEI White Paper

ML083650382
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/30/2008
From:	Subbaratnam R NRC/NRO/DNRL/NRGA
To:	Keithline K Nuclear Energy Institute
Subbaratam R. 301-415-1478, NGRA/DNRL
Shared Package
ML083650358	List: ML083650382
References
Download: ML083650382 (1)

Text

From: Ram Subbaratnam Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:42 PM To: Carol Ashley

Subject:

FW: Summary of Conference Call with NEI/Industry on December 23, 2008 to discuss draft NEI White Paper Attachments: Significance Paper_DRAFT_for_Discussion JMM 02Dec.pdf From: Ram Subbaratnam Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:37 AM To: 'KEITHLINE, Kimberly' Cc: Nilesh Chokshi; Clifford Munson; Goutam Bagchi; Dogan Seber; BELL, Russ; 'Cstepp@moment.net';

'aph@nei.org'

Subject:

Summary of Conference Call with NEI/Industry on December 23, 2008 to discuss draft NEI White Paper MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Ram Subbaratnam, Project Manager, NRCA/DNRL/NRO Office of New Reactors, Division of New Reactor Licensing

SUBJECT:

Summary of Conference Call with NEI/Industry on December 23, 2008 to discuss draft NEI White Paper on Significance of Hypothetical Sensitivity Evaluations The purpose of the call was to listen to the industry's proposed methodology on evaluating the significance of sensitivity results performed to decide whether a seismic source needs to be updated or not. This is related to a draft white paper submitted by the industry (see attachment) which was discussed in the call. A representative example (that of W.S. Lee site) was discussed to illustrate this methodology and the significance criteria that uses probabilistic risk assessment that tracks prospective change in seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) using guidelines contained in Regulatory Guide 1.174 (currently being used for operating reactors). After considering all the aspects, the staff indicated that the sole use of the SCDF may not be appropriate due to concerns of slope stability and other seismic hazards such as liquefaction which are site specific. Also the staff indicated that the applicability of RG 1.174 criteria to new reactors will require further explorations.

The staff further pointed out that rather than using a fixed numerical criterion, assessment of relative changes to the ground motion may be more appropriate to evaluate the engineering significance. Industry indicated that they will consider the discussion and let the staff know about their plans.

The NRC attendees were:

• Nilesh Chokshi

• Dorgan Seber

• Cliff Munson

• Goutam Bagchi

• Ram Subbaratnam

Other observers:

• Adrian Heymer, NEI

• Kimberly Keithline, NEI

• John McConaghy, Duke

• John Thrasher, Duke

• John Richards, Duke

• Peter Hastings, Duke

• Carl Stepp

• Robin McGuire, Risk Engineering

• Bob Kennedy, RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting

• Bob Whorton, SCANA

• Don Moore, Southern If You need any further information or assistance on this meeting summary please call me on (301) 415 1478 or e-Mail rxs2@nrc.gov.

Thank you.

Ram Subbaratnam Project Manager, NRCA/DNRL/NRO US NRC (301) 415 1478 E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (AC3D8151B0831F4EAFFB2501B87BF9050DFD8F0C1A)

Subject:

FW: Summary of Conference Call with NEI/Industry on December 23, 2008 to discuss draft NEI White Paper Sent Date: 12/30/2008 1:41:43 PM Received Date: 12/30/2008 1:41:43 PM From: Ram Subbaratnam Created By: Ram.Subbaratnam@nrc.gov Recipients:

Carol.Ashley@nrc.gov (Carol Ashley)

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 284734 12/30/2008 Significance Paper_DRAFT_for_Discussion JMM 02Dec.pdf 270006 Options

Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: True Return Notification: True Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: