ML041800088
| ML041800088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/2004 |
| From: | Tilda Liu NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | |
| Liu T, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1315 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC0774, TAC MC0775 | |
| Download: ML041800088 (15) | |
Text
June 25, 2004 LICENSEE: Southern Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCES ON MAY 17, 20, 24, 26, AND JUNE 2, 4 AND 7, 2004, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MC0774 AND MC0775)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and representatives of Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the applicant) held telephone conferences on May 17, 20, 24, 26, and June 2, 4 and 7, 2004, to discuss the applicants responses to the requests for additional information (RAIs) and other questions that were issued by the staff concerning the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) license renewal application.
The conference calls were useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs questions. On the basis of the discussion, the applicant was able to better understand the staff's questions. No staff decisions were made during the telephone conferences. In some cases, the applicant agreed to provide revised or supplemental information for clarification. provides a list of the telephone conference participants. Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the RAIs, or questions/clarifications discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items. The applicant has had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/
Tilda Y. Liu, Senior 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
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures: See next page
June 25, 2004 LICENSEE: Southern Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCES ON MAY 17, 20, 24, 26, AND JUNE 2, 4 AND 7, 2004, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MC0774 AND MC0775)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and representatives of Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the applicant) held telephone conferences on May 17, 20, 24, 26, and June 2, 4 and 7, 2004, to discuss the applicants responses to the requests for additional information (RAIs) and other questions that were issued by the staff concerning the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) license renewal application.
The conference calls were useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs questions. On the basis of the discussion, the applicant was able to better understand the staff's questions. No staff decisions were made during the telephone conferences. In some cases, the applicant agreed to provide revised or supplemental information for clarification. provides a list of the telephone conference participants. Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the RAIs, or questions/clarifications discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items. The applicant has had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/
Tilda Y. Liu, Senior 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
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page Document Name:C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML041800088.wpd
- See previous concurrence Accession No: ML041800088 OFFICE PM:RLEP CO-OP:RLEP LA:RLEP SC:RLEP NAME TLiu DChen TLiu for YEdmonds* SLee DATE 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/24/04 6/25/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Note to Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Re: Joseph M. Farley Date: June 25, 2004 Accession No: ML041800088 HARD COPY RLEP RF T. Liu (PM)
D. Chen J. Medoff R. Young L. Lois T. Steingass E-MAIL:
RidsNrrDrip RidsNrrDe G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo R. Jenkins P. Shemanski J. Fair RidsNrrDssa RidsNrrDipm D. Thatcher R. Pettis G. Galletti C. Li M. Itzkowitz (RidsOgcMailCenter)
R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy S. Smith (srs3)
S. Duraiswamy Y. L. (Renee) Li RLEP Staff C. Julian (R-II)
C. Patterson (R-II)
R. Fanner (R-II)
S. Peters R. Hoefling (OGC)
OPA B. Jain L. Whitney
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCES/MEETING FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES May 17- June 7, 2004 May 17, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
David Chen NRC James Medoff NRC Matthew Mitchell NRC Jan Fridrichsen Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)
Louis Bohn SNC Jon Hornbuckle SNC Charles Pierce SNC Lee Stern Westinghouse May 20, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC David Chen NRC James Medoff NRC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Willie Jennings SNC Mike Macfarlane SNC Charles Pierce SNC May 24, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC David Chen NRC Ron Young NRC Angelo Stubbs NRC Chang Li NRC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Mike Macfarlane SNC Charles Pierce SNC Farideh Saba Information Systems Laboratories (ISL)
Shazia Faridi ISL Enclosure 1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (Continued)
May 26, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC David Chen NRC Lambros Lois NRC Bill Evans SNC Jon Hornbuckle SNC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Chuck Pierce SNC Lee Stern Westinghouse Tom Laubham Westinghouse June 2, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC David Chen NRC James Medoff NRC Mike Macfarlane SNC Jon Hornbuckle SNC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Louis Bohn SNC Lee Stern Westinghouse Harshad Jambusaria Westinghouse June 4, 2004 Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC Jim Medoff NRC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Mike Macfarlane SNC Lou Bohn SNC Charles Pierce SNC June 7, 2004 (Morning)
Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC Tim Steingass NRC David Chen NRC Mike Macfarlane SNC Jon Hornbuckle SNC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Lee Stern Westinghouse Dulal Bhowmick Westinghouse
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (Continued)
June 7, 2004 (Afternoon)
Participants Affiliation Tilda Liu NRC Jim Medoff NRC David Chen NRC Mike Macfarlane SNC Lou Bohn SNC Jan Fridrichsen SNC Charles Pierce SNC
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES May 17, 2004 Follow-up to RAIs B.5.2-3, B.5.2-4 and B.5.2-5: Flux Detector Thimble Inspection Program Discussion: The staff indicated the document WCAP-12866, Bottom Mounted Instrument Flux Thimble Wear, needs to be docketed by the applicant so it can be reviewed. The applicant and its vendor, Westinghouse, stated the document has been submitted to the NRC in February 1991. The staff stated they will search through NRCs document library for the document.
Enclosure 2
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES May 20, 2004 The staff sent the following question via e-mail, on May 19, 2004, to follow-up on a RAI response with the applicant. The staffs follow-up question to the RAI and the associated discussion are presented below:
Follow-up to RAI 3.1.3.1-1 In RAI 3.1.3.1.1-1, Parts a. and b., the staff raised the question which mechanism could lead to loss of material in reactor vessel (RV), RV internals and reactor coolant pump (RCP) pressurizer and piping components made from stainless steel or NiCrFe materials. The staff specifically asked the question to address the issue that the water chemistry program would not be appropriate to manage loss of material that is induced by mechanical methods (such as wear, abrasion, or erosion) and that if loss of material could be induced by a mechanical-type of mechanism, only an inspection-based program would be appropriate to manage the aging effect.
In SNC's response to RAI 3.1.3.1.1-1, Part a., SNC replied that wear was only applicable to the following RV, RV internals, pressurizer or piping components: RV flange, clevis inserts and fasteners, flux thimble tubes, internals hold-down spring, radial support keys and fasteners, and upper core plate alignment pins. The reply does not indicate that wear is applicable to the bolting for the control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) housing flanges. The question is why not since GALL AMR Item IV.A2.2-f does identify that loss of material due to wear is applicable for these components and recommends that the bolting integrity program be used to manage wear in these bolts.
The second issue is that GALL AMR Item lIV.A2.2-g identifies that loss of preload due to stress relaxation is also an applicable aging effect for stainless steel CRDM housing flange bolts and recommends that the bolting integrity program be used for management of this aging effect.
The question is why SNC did not include an applicable AMR and identify loss of preload/stress relaxation as an applicable aging effect for the CRDM flanges, especially since GALL does address it.
Discussion: During the discussion, the applicant described the CRDM housing flange configuration. The applicant indicated the flange is not bolted and therefore the bolting integrity program is not applicable. The staff indicated that this question is WITHDRAWN and would not require a supplemental response.
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES May 24, 2004 The staff sent the following questions via e-mail, on May 24, 2004, to follow-up on certain RAI responses with the applicant. The staffs follow-up questions to the particular RAIs and the associated discussions are presented below:
Follow-up to RAI 2.2-5a The applicant in its response states that flexible hoses/connections and flexible joints in the OCCW and component cooling water (CCW) systems are metallic... and are encompassed in the piping component type. Clarify how similar components are grouped under a component type since this information is not included in the LRA or the table for component types which was provided in the response to RAI 2.2-2.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that it understood the question, and agreed to provide a supplemental response to this RAI.
Follow-up to RAI 2.2-5b, RAI 2.3.3.5-1a and b, and RAI 2.3.4.1-1 The applicant in its responses to RAI 2.2-5b, RAI 2.3.3.5-1a and b, and RAI 2.3.4.1-1, stated that air tanks, filters, valves, air reservoirs and all other components associated with the control valve operators are integral parts of the valve operator and directly support the action function of the operator. The staff agrees that valve operators are active components and are not subject to an AMR. However, the supply air piping and its associated components (pipes, valve bodies, filters, air tanks, air reservoirs, etc.) are passive components and are subject to an AMR.
Based on the discussions during the teleconference on 5/24/04, the applicant is requested to provide clarification to the following questions for the control valve operators (as examples):
Q1P16V562 on A-1700559L, Sheet 147; Q2P16V560 on A-200475L, Sheet 47; and HV-3235A/B on D-175033L, Sheet 2.
- The above license renewal boundary drawings show pipes, valve bodies, filters, air tanks, air reservoirs as separate components and not as the integral parts of the valve operator. Provide descriptive information or drawings that show the components which are considered as the integral parts of the above mentioned valve operators.
- If the pressure boundary of an operator associated component is breeched and supply pressure is lost, how will the valve operator perform its intended function of holding the isolation valve at its safe position?
- Is age-related degradation of the valve operator associated component managed under the Maintenance Rule? If so, how is the degradation managed?
Discussion: The applicant indicated that it understood the question, and agreed to provide supplemental responses to these RAIs.
Follow-up to RAI 2.3.3.7-3 Air dryer N1P18F501 skid is shown on D170131L, Sheet 4 drawing (not N1P18F001A as it is stated in the applicants response). Air dryers N1P19F001A, N1P19F001B and N1P18F501 appear to be mounted on separate skids as shown on the drawings (not on a single skid).
Therefore, they should not be considered as a single dryer assembly. Further, in the tables provided by the applicant in its response to RAI 2.2-2, air dryer component type is defined as
...air dryer of the compressed air system. Only the shell of the air dryer is considered passive and long-lived. This differs from the applicants response to this RAI which states that for the purpose of the LRA, SNC rolled the components up into a single component Air Dryer (LRA Table 3.3.2-7, page 3.3-63). Table 3.3.2-7 does not provide any details of the air dryer component type. Explain how associated components for an air dryer (e.g., pipes, filters, valve, etc.) are addressed in the LRA.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that it understood the question, and agreed to provide a supplemental response to this RAI.
Follow-up to RAI 2.3.3.7-4 The applicant in its response states that the strainer body is in scope . . . and is screened as carbon steel pipe. Clarify how strainer body is grouped under a component type since this information is not provided in the LRA or the table for component types which was provided in response to RAI 2.2-2. Further, the results of this approach differs from other AMR result tables. For example, carbon steel strainers in EDG System (Page 3.3-123) are not listed with carbon steel piping (Page 3.3-120). The LRA scoping and screening approach should be consistent for all the systems.
Discussion: The applicant clarified its response during the discussion. The applicant stated the component is in scope and that grouping of the component does not matter for the purposes of scoping. The staff indicated that this question is WITHDRAWN and would not require a supplemental response.
Follow-up to RAI 2.3.3.14-1 The applicant in its response states that the manhole, manhole covers, and access compartment (including the roof of the compartment and the compartment access doors) are all in scope for renewal... and included in the LRA Tables 2.3.3-14 and Table 3.3.2-14. However, the above-mentioned components are not listed in Table 2.3.3-14 or Table 3.3.2-14. Clarify whether these components are listed under another component type or should be added to the appropriate LRA tables.
Discussion: The applicant clarified its response during the discussion. The applicant stated the information was located on page 3.3-111 of the LRA. The staff indicated that this question is WITHDRAWN and would not require a supplemental response.
Follow-up to RAI 2.3.3.15-3 The applicants response differs from the information in LRA Table 3.3.2-15. The applicant in its response states that the equipment frames and housings component type is used to model the intake silencers and mufflers in Table 2.3.3.15. Table 3.3.2-15 listed silencers under ducts and fittings.
Further, in the table of component types provided by the applicant in response to RAI 2.2-2, the silencers are not listed under duct and fittings or equipment frame and housings. These tables should be revised to be consistent.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that it understood the question, and agreed to provide a supplemental response to this RAI.
Follow-up to RAI 2.3.3.23-1 Discuss whether disintegration of the diaphragm membrane can cause blockage of the supply lines from the reactor makeup water storage tanks to the CCW system.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that it understood the question, and agreed to provide a supplemental response to this RAI.
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES May 26, 2004 On May 25, 2004, the staff sent the following questions related to Section 4.5.3 of the LRA, via e-mail, to facilitate discussion with the applicant. The staffs questions and the associated discussions are presented below:
WCAP-14040, Rev. 2 WCAP-14040, Rev. 2 was issued before RG 1.190 was published in March 2001. References in WCAP-14040, Rev. 2, will need to be updated to agree with RG 1.190. WCAP-14040, Rev. 2 does not include a fluence methodology. An alternate way [to resolve this] could be to use Rev. 2 but add one (for each Unit) of its recent capsule reports which describes its method in surveillance capsule reports from Westinghouse (Chapter 6). The capsule reports listed in , "Revised PTLR Methodology" of this WCAP list capsule reports dated well before 2001. Therefore, the WCAP does not adhere to RG 1.190.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. The applicant agreed to submit the requested information to the staff as supplemental response to the staff question.
Overpressure Transient Analyses Section 5.2.2.4.3 of the FSAR, which the applicant provided, discusses mass and heat injection transients but no results. The question still remains, is the relief capacity of the RHR relief valves sufficient for the new power level?
Discussion: The staff requested calculations in order to evaluate whether the relief capacity of the RHR relief valves are sufficient for the new power level. The staff and applicant agreed that the applicants commitment to protect the vessel from low temperature overpressurization per Appendix G of 10 CFR 50 was sufficient, which is part of the current licensing basis (CLB). The staff indicated that this question is WITHDRAWN and would not require a supplemental response.
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES June 2, 4 and 7, 2004 Follow-up to RAI B.5.2-3 On June 2, 4, and 7, 2004, the staff and applicant discussed the response to RAI B.5.2-3 related to the flux detector thimble inspection program. On June 7, 2004, the following question was e-mailed to the applicant to resolve the staffs question:
For the Unit 2 thimble tubes, the staff requests the following information to support that an inspection frequency of once every other refueling outage is reasonable
- a. worst case adjusted amount of wear used for the wear rate projection that supported an inspection frequency of once every other refueling outage, including a quantitative clarification of what NDE uncertainty value (as a percentage of the total thimble tube wall thickness) was used to adjust the amount of wear in the calculation;
- b. clarification of what the thimble tube thickness is;
- c. a statement of that for the projection of wear, the applicant used the equation in Proprietary WCAP-12866 as the basis for projecting the wear to the next inspection outage, and that plant specific wear data applicable to the Farley thimble tubes was used to curve fit the equation and establish the curve coefficient. Specify what the amount of projected wear is for the Unit 2 thimble tubes using the Westinghouse equation (Note to SNC: only if Westinghouse agrees that it is non-proprietary, then the applicant is requested to provide the coefficient value for the wear rate equation.)
For the Unit 1 thimble tubes, since SNC has not yet performed two inspections of the new tube materials (the next one is in 2006), the staff requests the applicant provide a commitment to submit the same information being requested for the Unit 2 tubes after the applicant performs the second inspection of the new Unit 1 thimble tubes in 2006.
The staff requests that the applicant's Unit 1 submittal discuss the technical basis for establishing the inspection frequency that will be implemented after performing the second examination of the new tube materials.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question was clear. The applicant agreed to submit the requested information for Unit 2. The applicant agreed to submit the same information for Unit 1 when the second inspection occurs in 2006.
REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 FOLLOW-UP TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSES June 7, 2004 (Morning)
On June 3 and June 4, 2004, the staff sent the following questions related to Section B.5.8 of the LRA, via e-mail, to facilitate discussion with the applicant. The staffs questions and the associated discussions are presented below:
Question 1 The applicant submitted both the proprietary and non-proprietary versions of the subject Technical Report (WCAP) by letter dated April 22, 2004. The staff is asking if the applicant, during the preparation of the Addendum, whether there was a departure from the method of evaluation that was previously approved by the staff in the original January, 1991 submittal.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that this question was clear. The applicant stated that there was no change in the methodology. The staff indicated that no further action from the applicant was needed at this time.
Question 2 Regarding the NiCrFe Assessment Program, for Farley's response to RAI B.5.8-1, the staff requests the response be revised to add Farley Nuclear Plant-License Renewal Future Action Commitment list will be revised accordingly.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that this question was clear. The applicant agreed to submit a revised response to include the information requested by the staff.
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant cc:
Mr. Don E. Grissette Mr. William D. Oldfield General Manager - Plant Farley SAER Supervisor Southern Nuclear Operating Company Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 470 Post Office Box 470 Ashford, AL 36312 Ashford, AL 36312 Mr. B. D. McKinney Mr. Charles R. Pierce Licensing Manager Manager - License Renewal Southern Nuclear Operating Company Southern Nuclear Operating Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Mr. Stanford M. Blanton, esq. Mr. Fred Emerson Balch and Bingham Law Firm Nuclear Energy Institute Post Office Box 306 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 1710 Sixth Avenue North Washington, DC 20006-3708 Birmingham, AL 35201 Resident Inspector Mr. J. B. Beasley, Jr. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Vice President 7388 N. State Highway 95 Southern Nuclear Operating Company Columbia, AL 36319 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Mr. L. M. Stinson Birmingham, AL 35201 Vice President - Farley Project Southern Nuclear Operating Company Dr. D. E. Williamson 40 Inverness Center Parkway State Health Officer Post Office Box 1295 Alabama Department of Public Health Birmingham, AL 35201 The RSA Tower 201 Monroe Street, Suite 1500 Montgomery, AL 36130-1701 Chairman Houston County Commission Post Office Box 6406 Dothan, AL 36302