ML030210167

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:46, 24 March 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Facsimile Transmission, Issues Discussed in Phone Conversation
ML030210167
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/30/2003
From: Spaulding D
NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC MB5553, TAC MB5554
Download: ML030210167 (3)


Text

January 30, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Deirdre W. Spaulding, Project Manager, Section 1 /RA/

Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 -

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ISSUES DISCUSSED IN PHONE CONVERSATION (TAC NOS. MB5553 AND MB5554)

The attached questions were transmitted by fax to Ms. Schofield of Point Beach Nuclear Plant in preparation for a telephone call held on January 16, 2003. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.

Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301

Attachment:

Discussion Points

January 30, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Deirdre W. Spaulding, Project Manager, Section 1 /RA/

Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 -

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ISSUES DISCUSSED IN PHONE CONVERSATION (TAC NOS. MB5553 AND MB5554)

The attached questions were transmitted by fax to Ms. Schofield of Point Beach Nuclear Plant in preparation for a telephone call held on January 16, 2003. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.

Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301

Attachment:

Discussion Points DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PDIII-1 Reading DSpaulding RBouling LRaghavan ADAMS Accession No. ML030210167 OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/LA PDIII-1/SC NAME DSpaulding RBouling LRaghavan DATE 01/30/03 01/29/03 01/30/03 OFFICIAL RECORD ONLY

Discussion Points Relief Request #3 - MB5553 and MB5554

1. The submittal states, The original results provided for the RI-ISI analysis are based on the 1996 PRA Update. The last PRA update was done in the summer of 2001, to prepare for the PRA Certification effort. To the degree available, those results are incorporated into this study.

Please elaborate on the last sentence quoted above.

2. The staff review of the original IPE and the WOG review of the latest version of the PRA have identified shortcomings in the treatment of pre-accident human errors.

Furthermore, according to your submittal, the WOG reviewers also critiqued the common cause failure analysis performed in the latest version of the PRA. Please elaborate on your claim that the RI-ISI consequence evaluation results would not be impacted once these modeling deficiencies are eliminated.

3. The risk profile of the PBNP has changed significantly relative to the IPE. In the IPE model, the LOCA events were the dominant contributors to CDF. This is not the case for the latest PRA model, which identifies SGTR events as dominant contributors.

Please identify design/operation modifications that you credited in the PRA model that are responsible for reducing the importance of LOCA sequences.

ATTACHMENT