ML081160150
| ML081160150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/08/2008 |
| From: | Kent Howard NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| To: | FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| Sayoc, Manny, NRR/DLR/RLRB 415-1924 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML081160150 (10) | |
Text
May 8, 2008 LICENSEE: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON APRIL 10, 2008, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, CONCERNING FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) held a telephone conference call on April 10, 2008, to discuss the follow-up questions on the Severe Accidents Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) requests for additional information (RAIs) concerning the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. Enclosure 1 is a list of the conference call participants. Enclosure 2 is a listing of the follow-up questions on the SAMA RAI. Enclosure 3 is a summary of the discussion between FENOC and the NRC staff.
If you have any questions concerning the NRC staffs summary of this telephone conference, please contact Mr. Kent Howard at 301-415-2989 or via e-mail at Kent.Howard@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Kent Howard, Sr., Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ encls: See next page
ML081160150 OFFICE:
LA:DLR PM:DLR:RPB2 PM:DLR:RPB2 BC:DLR:RPB2 NAME:
IKing ESayoc KHoward RFranovich DATE:
5/01/08 5/01/08 5/02/08 5/08/08
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL FOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION April 10, 2008 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Emmanuel Sayoc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Robert Palla NRC Bruce Mrowca Information Systems Laboratories (ISL) Inc.
Ali Azarm ISL Inc.
Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
Glenn Ritz FENOC Bill Etzel FENOC Steven Dort FENOC Steve Meyer Scientech Robert Reeves Fauske Associates, Inc.
Chan Paik Fauske Associates, Inc.
ENCLOSURE 1
Follow-Up Questions Based On Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 and 2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Request for Additional Information Responses RAI 2.b
- 1.
Provide the reason for the large difference in the strontium oxide (SrO) releases predicted by (MAAP-DBA) and MAAP 4.0.4 for RCs BV1, BV5, and BV9.
- 2.
Describe the significance of the SrO release fractions on the estimated population dose.
RAI 3.a
- 1.
For Unit 1, PA-1E and NS-1 were listed as significant contributors to the core damage frequency (CDF) (in environmental report (ER) Table 3.1.2.1-2) apparently based on the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE); Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 182 and 184 were identified to address these contributors. For Unit 2, SB-4, CV-1, and CV-3 were listed as significant contributors to the CDF; and SAMAs 181, 182 and 183 were identified to address these contributors. These fire risk contributors and SAMAs are not mentioned in the response to RAI 3.a. Explain the model or plant changes that reduced the importance of these contributors identified in the IPEEE.
- 2.
The descriptions of Unit 2 SAMAs 179 through 185 provided in ER Table 6-1 do not explain the proposed changes associated with these SAMAs. Additional information is provided for SAMAs 179 and 180 as part of response to RAI 8b; however, the changes associated with the other SAMAs are unclear. Describe the proposed changes associated with each of these SAMAs that are the basis for the $100K to greater than
$1,000K cost variation.
RAI 3.b and 5.b
- 1.
As shown in Tables 3.B-1 and 3.B-2, total CDF is dominated by seismic events with peak ground accelerations (PGAs) in the ranges of 0.25g to 0.35g (Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 2 events), 0.35g to 0.5g (SEIS 3 events),
and 0.5g to 1.0g (SEIS 4 events). Tables 5.B-1 through 5.B-4 indicate that seismic SAMAs were considered for each of the initiating event groups, including SEIS 1 through SEIS 4 events for Unit 1 and SEIS 2 through SEIS 4 events for Unit 2. However, as described in the response to RAI 3.b, in identifying potential SAMAs for seismic events, FENOC considered only the risk associated with PGAs ranging from 0.01g to 0.25g (i.e.,
SEIS 1 events). SEIS 1 events account for only about 2 to 4% of the seismic CDF as shown in Tables 3.B-1 and 3.B-2. The response to RAI 3.b states that designing against higher PGAs would require modifications to structures housing the components and would result in excessive costs. In view of the significantly larger CDF and risk reduction potential associated with events with higher PGA (e.g., about 20% and 40% of the seismic CDF from SEIS 2 and SEIS 3 events, respectively), provide additional justification for: (a) limiting the consideration of seismic SAMAs to events with PGA less ENCLOSURE 2
than 0.25g and (b) the statement that designing against PGAs higher than 0.25g would require modifications to structures housing the components. In addition, explicitly describe the approach used to calculate the benefits for SAMAs 167 and 187, including the split fraction changes used for Top Events ZB and ZD. If only the low PGA split fraction for these top events was improved, demonstrate that additional hardening is not cost effective.
SUMMARY
FOR THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL FOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION April 10, 2008 The staff and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) discussed the follow-up questions (FQ) for the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) request for additional information (RAI) listed in Enclosure 2.
FQ RAI 2.b, Questions 1 and 2 FENOC indicated that the reason for the large difference in the strontium oxide (SrO) releases predicted by MAAP-DBA and MAAP 4.0.4 for Release Categories (RC)s BV1, BV5, and BV9 has many contributing factors including reactor core temperature behavior and code improvement of MAAP-DBA over MAAP 4.0.4. It is difficult to ascertain the main factors for this difference. In any case, FENOC added that this difference was not significant in the estimated population dose since SrO release fractions (unlike Cesium release fractions) are not a major fission product contributing to population dosage. FENOC agreed to supplement the SAMA RAI response with an elaboration on this topic.
FQ RAI 3.a, Question 1 In the area of fire risk contributors, FENOCs RAI response listed initiating sequences that were different from those stated in the environmental report (ER), some sequences along with associated SAMAs were removed. The staff explained how it was unclear if there was a change in the fire risk model or frequency, or if there was a plant change that reduced the contributors identified in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE). FENOC explained that the contributors and associated SAMAs were no longer dominant and did not provide any cost effectiveness after a shift in analysis from the IPEEE to the current model used. FENOC agreed to supplement the SAMA RAI response with an elaboration on this current model and an evaluation of dominant fire risk contributors.
FQ RAI 3.a, Question 2 The staff explained that they were unclear on the reasoning for the proposed changes associated with SAMAs 179 through 185 and how SAMA cost variations were determined. The staff was satisfied with the information pointed out by FENOC contained in Table 3.1.21-2 of the ER, Attachment C-2 for SAMAs 179-183. FENOC agreed to supplement the SAMA RAI response with a discussion of changes in Unit 2 SAMAs 184 and 185 (commensurate with the level of detail for corresponding SAMAs in Unit 1) focusing on any plant or model changes, and explaining cost assignment.
FQ RAI 3.b, and 5.b The staff explained that FENOCs process for identifying seismic contributors and screening out associated SAMAs, as outlined in the ER, lacked technical detail and systematic analysis.
FENOC agreed to reevaluate the seismic event contributors and to clearly present that the ENCLOSURE 3
SAMA analysis addresses more than just the lowest peak ground acceleration range
(.1g). In particular, FENOC agreed to replace the screening argument with an assessment of the dominant seismic events in Tables 3.B-5 and 3.B-6 of the SAMA RAI response. This analysis is to include a justification and walk-through of the SAMA screening process, such as making a case that structural enhancements are required thus, rendering the SAMA to be cost ineffective.
Letter to FirstEnergy from K. Howard, dated May 08, 2008 DISTRIBUTION:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON APRIL 10, 2008, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, CONCERNING FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC SSmith (srs3)
SDuraiswamy RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRlra RidsNrrDlrRlrb RidsNrrDlrRlrc RidsNrrDlrReba RidsNrrDlrRebb RidsNrrDciCvib RidsNrrDciCpnb RidsNrrDraAfpb RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsNrrDeEeeb RidsNrrDssSbwb RidsNrrDssSbpb RidsNrrDssScvb RidsOgcMailCenter KHoward ESayoc NMorgan MModes, RI PCataldo, RI DWerkheiser, RI
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Joseph J. Hagan President and Chief Nuclear Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-19 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 James H. Lash Senior Vice President of Operations and Chief Operating Officer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Danny L. Pace Senior Vice President, Fleet Engineering FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Jeannie M. Rinckel Vice President, Fleet Oversight FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-14 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 David W. Jenkins, Attorney FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-15 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Manager, Fleet Licensing FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-2 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Ohio EPA-DERR ATTN: Zack A. Clayton P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, OH 43266-0149 Director, Fleet Regulatory Affairs FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Mail Stop A-GO-2 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Manager, Site Regulatory Compliance FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station Mail Stop A-BV-A P.O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Commissioner James R. Lewis West Virginia Division of Labor 749-B, Building No. 6 Capitol Complex Charleston, WV 25305 Director, Utilities Department Public Utilities Commission 180 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43266-0573 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 2605 Interstate Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9364 Dr. Judith Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Sierra Club 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16803
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 Mayor of the Borough of Shippingport P.O. Box 3 Shippingport, PA 15077 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 298 Shippingport, PA 15077 Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Mike Banko FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Julie Firestone FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077