ML043270652

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of Telephone Conference Heldon November 17, 2004, Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Management Company, Llc. Concerning Draft Requests for Additional Information Pertaining to the Point Beach Nuclear Plan, U
ML043270652
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/17/2004
From: Morgan M
NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP
To:
NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP
Morgan M, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-2232
References
Download: ML043270652 (7)


Text

November 17, 2004 LICENSEE: Nuclear Management Company, LLC FACILITY: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 2004, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (the staff) and representatives of Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) held a telephone conference on November 17, 2004, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft requests for additional information (D-RAIs) concerning the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs D-RAIs. provides a listing of the meeting participants. Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the D-RAIs discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

/RA/

Michael J. Morgan, Project Manager License Renewal Section A License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.: 50-266 and 50-301

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page

ML043270652 DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML043270652.wpd OFFICE PM:RLEP SC:RLEP NAME MMorgan SLee (R. Auluck for)

DATE 11/17/04 11/17/04 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Jonathan Rogoff, Esq. David Weaver Vice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Asset Manager Nuclear Management Company, LLC Wisconsin Electric Power Company 700 First Street 231 West Michigan Street Hudson, WI 54016 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Mr. Frederick D. Kuester John Paul Cowan President and Chief Executive Officer Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear We Generation Officer 231 West Michigan Street Nuclear Management Company, LLC Milwaukee, WI 53201 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 James Connolly Manager, Regulatory Affairs Douglas E. Cooper Point Beach Nuclear Plant Senior Vice President - Group Operations Nuclear Management Company, LLC Palisades Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Road Nuclear Management Company, LLC Two Rivers, WI 54241 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Fred Emerson Town of Two Creeks Nuclear Energy Institute 13017 State Highway 42 1776 I Street, NW., Suite 400 Mishicot, WI 54228 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Chairman Roger A. Newton Public Service Commission 3623 Nagawicka Shores Drive of Wisconsin Hartland, WI 53029 P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 James E. Knorr License Renewal Project Regional Administrator, Region III Nuclear Management Company, LLC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6610 Nuclear Road 801 Warrenville Road Point Beach Nuclear Plant Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Two Rivers, WI 54241 Resident Inspector's Office Dennis L. Koehl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Site Vice President 6612 Nuclear Road Point Beach Nuclear Plant Two Rivers, WI 54241 Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Mr. Jeffrey Kitsembel Two Rivers, WI 54241 Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854

DISTRIBUTION: To Licensee: Nuclear Management Co., LLC, Re: Pt. Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Dated: November 17, 2004 Adams accession no.: ML043270652 HARD COPY RLEP RF Project Manager 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 L. Kozak, RIII P. Lougheed, RIII J. Strasma, RIII A. Vegel, RIII H. Chernoff W. Ruland C. Marco L. Raghavan T. Mensah OPA

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION NOVEMBER 17, 2004 Participants Affiliations T. Mielke Nuclear Management Company; LLC S. Schellin Nuclear Management Company; LLC M. Ortmayer Nuclear Management Company; LLC J. Thorgersen Nuclear Management Company; LLC F. Talbot Nuclear Regulatory Commission R. McIntyre Nuclear Regulatory Commission V. Rodriguez Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Morgan Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure 1

DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (D-RAI)

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION November 17, 2004 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (the staff) and representatives of Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) held a telephone conference call on November 17, 2004, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft requests for additional information (D-RAIs) concerning the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA). The following D-RAIs were discussed during the telephone conference call.

D-RAI-2.1 .1 Short Term Exposure Duration Definition - 10 CFR 54(a)(2)

The PBNP LRA and page 13 of LR-TR-514 did not adequately define short termexposure duration for low and moderate energy piping failures covered under10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) that could affect safety related electrical equipment under thescope of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1).

Specifically, the staff found that some safety-related electrical equipment may exist in the turbine building or other parts of the plant and may be subject to harsh environments from low or moderate energy pipe breaks but are not environmentally qualified (EQ). Since this equipment may not be EQ, they could fail due to 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) piping failures.

The staff requests additional information to adequately define short term exposure duration for low and moderate energy piping failures and how it relates to scoping and screening of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) piping that could cause these types of failures.

Discussion: Based on the discussion with the applicant, the staff indicated and the applicant agreed that this question required clarification. Applicant will clarify information/response.

D-RAI- 2.1.2 First Equivalent Anchor Definition - 10 CFR 54(a)(2)

The PBNP LRA Section 2.1.2.1.2, page 2-19, states, under, NSR SSCs Directly Connected to SR SSCs, ?For NSR SSCs directly connected to SR SSCs (typically piping systems), the NSR piping and supports, up to and including the first equivalent anchor beyond the safety/non safety interface, are within the scope of license renewal per 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). Although these piping segments are not uniquely identified on the LR boundary drawing, applicable aging effects on these piping segments are managed along with the adjoining SR piping.

The staff requests additional information to adequately describe and define what is meant by the first equivalent anchor and how it relates to the scoping and screening of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2)

NSR piping and supports.

Enclosure 2

Discussion: Based on the discussion with the applicant, the staff indicated and the applicant agreed that this question required clarification. Applicant will clarify information/response.

RAI -2.1.3 Flow Accelerated Corrision affect on Piping Section Scoping - 10 CFR 54(a)(2)

The PBNP LRA Section 2.1.2.1.2, pages 2-20&21, states, under Piping Supports, ??All NSR supports for non-seismic or Seismic II/I piping systems with a potential for spatial interaction with safety related SSC, will be included within the scope of license renewal per 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). These supports will be addressed in a commodity fashion, within the civil/structural area review. As long as the effects of aging on the supports for these piping systems are managed, falling of piping sections, except for flow accelated corrosion (FAC) failures, is not considered credible, and the piping section itself would not be in-scope for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) due to physical impact hazard (although the leakage or spray may still apply).

The staff requests additional information to adequately describe why the falling of piping sections is not considered credible, and why the piping section itself would not be in-scopefor 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) due to physical impact hazard. Please describe how the management of FAC relates to the scoping and screening of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) Seismic II/I piping systems that could cause these types of failures.

Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This D-RAI will be sent as a formal RAI.

Enclosure 2