ML040440296
| ML040440296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/2004 |
| From: | Tilda Liu NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | Stinson L Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| Liu T, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1315 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML040440296 (8) | |
Text
February 13, 2004 Mr. L. M. Stinson Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Stinson:
By letter dated September 12, 2003, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or the applicant) submitted an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC). The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application (LRA) and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review. Specifically, the enclosed requests for additional information (RAIs) are from Section 2.3.1, Reactor Vessel, Internals, and Reactor Coolant System; and Section 2.4, Scoping and Screening Results: Containments, Structures, and Component Supports.
These RAIs, in a draft format, have been provided to Mr. Jan Fridrichsen of your staff on December 8, 2003, and January 23, 2004. The NRC staff has discussed draft versions of these RAIs, via conference calls, to provide clarifications to the SNC staff on January 28 and February 5, 2004. Your responses to these RAIs are requested within 30 days from the date of this letter. Mr. Fridrichsen has agreed to this request. If needed, the NRC staff is willing to meet or discuss with SNC again prior to the submittal of the applicants responses to provide clarifications to the staffs RAIs.
Please also note that RAI 3.1-2, which was sent by letter dated February 3, 2004, should have been omitted. Therefore, your response to this RAI is not needed.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1315 or e-mail tyl1@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Tilda Liu, Project Manager License Renewal Section A License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
February 13, 2004 Mr. L. M. Stinson Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Stinson:
By letter dated September 12, 2003, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or the applicant) submitted an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC). The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application (LRA) and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review. Specifically, the enclosed requests for additional information (RAIs) are from Section 2.3.1, Reactor Vessel, Internals, and Reactor Coolant System; and Section 2.4, Scoping and Screening Results: Containments, Structures, and Component Supports.
These RAIs, in a draft format, have been provided to Mr. Jan Fridrichsen of your staff on December 8, 2003, and January 23, 2004. The NRC staff has discussed draft versions of these RAIs, via conference calls, to provide clarifications to the SNC staff on January 28 and February 5, 2004. Your responses to these RAIs are requested within 30 days from the date of this letter. Mr. Fridrichsen has agreed to this request. If needed, the NRC staff is willing to meet or discuss with SNC again prior to the submittal of the applicants responses to provide clarifications to the staffs RAIs.
Please also note that RAI 3.1-2, which was sent by letter dated February 3, 2004, should have been omitted. Therefore, your response to this RAI is not needed.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1315 or e-mail tyl1@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Tilda Liu, Project Manager License Renewal Section A License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page Accession no. ML040440296 DISTRIBUTION: See next page Document Name: C:\\ORPCheckout\\FileNET\\ML040440296.wpd OFFICE LA:RLEP PM:RLEP SC:RLEP NAME YEdmonds TLiu SLee DATE 2/11/04 2/11/04 2/13/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Ltr. to L.M. Stinson, Date: February 13, 2004 Accession no. ML040440296 HARD COPY RLEP RF T. Liu (PM)
H. Ashar D. Jeng T. Ford E-MAIL:
PUBLIC J. Craig D. Matthews F. Gillespie R. Barrett C. Grimes RidsNrrDe E. Imbro G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo R. Jenkins P. Shemanski S. Black B. Boger D. Thatcher G. Galletti C. Li J. Moore M. Mayfield A. Murphy S. Smith (srs3)
S. Duraiswamy B. Jain Y. (Renee) Li RLEP Staff C. Julian (R-II)
C. Patterson (R-II)
R. Fanner (R-II)
S. Peters L. Whitney R. Hoefling/M. Lemoncelli (OGC)
Enclosure JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
Section 2.3.1: Reactor Vessel, Internals, and Reactor Coolant System 2.3.1.1 Reactor Vessel RAI 2.3.1.1-1 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
RAI 2.3.1.1-2 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
RAI 2.3.1.1-3 Borated water leakage through the pressure boundary in PWRs, and resulting borated water induced wastage of carbon steel is a potential aging degradation for the components. Reactor vessel head lifting lugs are considered to be such components requiring aging management.
However, if the components are currently covered under Boric Acid Wastage Surveillance Program, then it may not require additional aging management. It appears that the subject components were not discussed in the LRA (Table 2.3.1.1), and therefore, the staff requests the applicant to verify whether the components are within the surveillance program; and if not, to provide an explanation for the exclusion.
2.3.1.2 Reactor Vessel Internals RAI 2.3.1.2-1 Please verify whether the component group Neutron Panels listed in LRA Table 2.3.1.2 includes a thermal shield, whose intended function is to provide shielding for the safety-related SSCs, such as the reactor vessel and the internals, from gammas and neutrons. A thermal shield may be relied upon to minimize irradiation induced embrittlement of the vessel and/or the internals. If the component exists at Farley, clarify whether a thermal shield is included with Neutron Panels or justify its exclusion from aging management; otherwise, submit an AMR for the subject component.
RAI 2.3.1.2-2 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
RAI 2.3.1.2-3 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
2.3.1.3 Reactor Coolant System and Connected Lines RAI 2.3.1.3-1 Please verify whether the component groups Piping, Class 1 (Reactor Coolant Loop), Piping, Class 1 (Piping Components < NPS 4), and Piping, Class 1 (Piping Components NPS 4) listed in LRA Table 2.3.1.3 also include fittings, which serve as a pressure boundary. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2), the fittings should be within the scope of license renewal.
Please provide justification for the exclusion or submit an AMR for the stated components.
RAI 2.3.1.3-2 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
Section 2.4:
Scoping and Screening Results: Containments, Structures, and Component Supports RAI 2.4-1 LRA Table 2.2-1h identifies structures that are not in scope of license renewal. It is not obvious to the staff that all of the listed structures serve no intended function. The applicant is requested to provide its technical basis for this determination for the following structures: circulating water structures and cooling towers; containment equipment hatch access enclosure; river water intake structure; meteorological & microwave structures and equipment; and yard drainage system. Also verify that seismic II/I considerations are not applicable to any of the structures not in the scope of license renewal (e.g., containment equipment hatch access enclosure).
In addition, while the staff acknowledges that the tendon access gallery does not serve an intended function in the strictest interpretation of the License Renewal Rule, there is significant industry operating experience related to flooding and corrosive environments in the tendon access gallery that have contributed to degradation of the tendon anchorage components and surrounding concrete. Management of the condition of the tendon access gallery is a preventive step to minimize aging effects for the prestressing system. The applicant is requested to submit its plant-specific operating/aging experience related to (1) flooding and corrosive environments in the tendon access gallery, and (2) degradation of the prestressing system components (both steel and concrete) in the tendon access gallery, and based on the FNP specific tendon gallery operating/aging experience, discuss FNPs basis for not including the tendon gallery structure within the AMR scope pursuant to 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2).
RAI 2.4-2 Based on its review of LRA Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, the staff identified the following cross-references between the mechanical and structural scoping and screening, that require clarification and/or additional information.
In LRA Section 2.4.2.7, the plant vent stacks are identified as yard structures. However, in the first paragraph, it is stated The plant vent stacks are evaluated as part of the Auxiliary and Radwaste Ventilation System in Section 2.3.3.10. In LRA Section 2.4.2.7, under the heading Plant Vent Stack, it states, The vent stack is a Seismic Category I structure that is not required for safe shutdown. It also states that The vent stack is a non safety-related structure but its function is to maintain its structural integrity during a design basis event such that it does not impact other SR structures or components. It appears that the plant vent stacks are in the LR scope for seismic II/I considerations. LRA Table 2.3.3.10 does not list the plant vent stacks as a Component Type. Clarify which section of LRA Section 2 includes the plant vent stacks (and their foundations) in its scope, and also identify where the AMR for the plant vent stacks (and their foundations) is explicitly listed in LRA Section 3.5 tables.
RAI 2.4-3 Clarify the complete scope of load handling systems in the Farley LR scope. LRA Section 2.3.3.4 Overhead Heavy and Refueling Load Handling System appears to be limited to the major heavy lift and refueling-related systems. Are there any other load handling systems that serve an intended function (e.g., seismic II/I), and are included in the LR scope? If so, please provide a description of the other load handling systems in the LR scope; define their intended functions; identify whether they are in the Mechanical Systems scope or Structures scope; and specify where the AMR is located in the LRA.
RAI 2.4-4 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
RAI 2.4-5 To completely clarify the scope of the ultimate heat sink structures, provide the following additional information:
a.
Describe the River Water system that transports water from the river water intake structure to the storage pond and explain why the structures in this system are not within the scope of license renewal. Also, can there be a reverse flow of water that can reduce the water level in the storage pond, and consequently jeopardize the intended function of the ultimate heat sink? If applicable, what structures would prevent such an occurrence and are they included in the LR scope?
b.
In LRA Section 2.4.2.5, the discussion of the Storage Pond Spillway Structure does not include a description of the Spillway Intake and Discharge Canals. These canals are described in FSAR Section 2.4.8.2. Further information on these canals (channels) is provided in FSAR Section 2.4.14.2, which states:
The spillway channel shall be inspected after each operation of sufficient magnitude to have a potential for erosion. A discharge of 80 ft3/s corresponding to a pool at elevation 187.0 has been selected as the minimum flow for which inspection shall be required. At this discharge the flow in the grassed discharge channel would have an average velocity of about 1.3 ft per second with a flow depth of 1.3 ft. The pond level will be monitored in the control room. Whenever the operator observes or inspection of the chart indicates that the pool level is greater than or equal to elevation 187.0, the channels and structure shall be inspected at the end of the discharge period, as required by the Technical Requirements Manual. Eroded areas that affect or can affect the channel bank slopes or that are more than 4 ft. deep should be promptly repaired. Because of the expected infrequent use of the spillway, the channels and structure shall also be inspected biennially, as required by the Technical Requirements Manual.
In light of the above information, clarify whether the Spillway Intake and Discharge Canals are within the scope of license renewal. If not, explain why not.
RAI 2.4-6 (This RAI is intentionally omitted. The numbering scheme was used for the draft RAI.)
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant cc:
Mr. Don E. Grissette General Manager - Plant Farley Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 470 Ashford, AL 36312 Mr. B. D. McKinney Licensing Manager Southern Nuclear Operating Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Mr. Stanford M. Blanton, esq.
Balch and Bingham Law Firm Post Office Box 306 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35201 Mr. J. B. Beasley, Jr.
Executive Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Dr. D. E. Williamson State Health Officer Alabama Department of Public Health The RSA Tower 201 Monroe Street, Suite 1500 Montgomery, AL 36130-1701 Chairman Houston County Commission Post Office Box 6406 Dothan, AL 36302 Mr. William D. Oldfield SAER Supervisor Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 470 Ashford, AL 36312 Mr. Charles R. Pierce Manager - License Renewal Southern Nuclear Operating Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Mr. Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7388 N. State Highway 95 Columbia, AL 36319