ML16319A422

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:59, 4 December 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRR E-mail Capture - Need for Supplement to ILRT License Amendment
ML16319A422
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/10/2016
From: Justin Poole
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To: Browne K
Nextera Energy
References
Download: ML16319A422 (2)


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Poole, Justin Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 3:23 PM To: Browne, Kenneth Cc: Thomas, Christine; Brown, Victoria - Seabrook Station Licensing Dept

Subject:

Need for Supplement to ILRT license amendment

Ken, On October 27, 2016, NextEra provided responses to the NRC staffs request for additional information (RAI) related to the license amendment request regarding extending containment leakage testing frequency. On November 7, we held a call with your staff to clarify the responses to RAIs 1 and 4a. As discussed during the call, the NRC staff would like you to clarify the following on the docket in a supplemental response.

RAI 1

  • Page 3 of SBK-L-16165 describes that that difference in CDF is attributable to use of level 1 values for internal events, internal flooding, external flooding and severe weather from the 2014 PRA update vs. the 2011 PRA. The NRC staff would like to clarify if the modeling changes made in the 2014 PRA update constitute an upgrade (as defined by the PRA Standard as endorsed by RG 1.200, Rev. 2) such that a focused-scope peer review would have been needed.
  • The staff believes there was a transcribing error in Table 1 from the information that was provided in the application (External floods: 2.09E-8 vs. 2.86E-8).

RAI 5

  • Page 8 of SBK-L-16165 provides the requested sensitivity analysis. It is stated that CDF is approximately 2.5E-5/yr, an increase of 109%, above the baseline value of 1.20E-5/yr. The staff noted that this increase in CDF is significant. Since external events contribute substantially to CDF, the NRC would like to clarify if sensitivity analysis also included external events (e.g. fire). If so, was a floor value of 1E-6 or 1E-5 used?
  • The staff believes there is a typo in Table 5-7.

Thanks.

Justin C. Poole Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLI-2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301)415-2048 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3154 Mail Envelope Properties (Justin.Poole@nrc.gov20161110152200)

Subject:

Need for Supplement to ILRT license amendment Sent Date: 11/10/2016 3:22:37 PM Received Date: 11/10/2016 3:22:00 PM From: Poole, Justin Created By: Justin.Poole@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Thomas, Christine" <Christine.Thomas@nexteraenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Brown, Victoria - Seabrook Station Licensing Dept" <Victoria.Brown@nexteraenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Browne, Kenneth" <Kenneth.J.Browne@nexteraenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1710 11/10/2016 3:22:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: