ML050120254
| ML050120254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  (DPR-058, DPR-074) |
| Issue date: | 01/12/2005 |
| From: | Rowley J NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | Nazar M Indiana Michigan Power Co |
| Rowley J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-4053 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML050120254 (6) | |
Text
January 12, 2005 Mr. Mano K. Nazar Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Bridgman, MI 49106
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Nazar:
By letter dated October 31, 2003, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M or the applicant) submitted an application, pursuant to Title 10 Code of the Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the operating licenses for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP),
Units 1 and 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application (LRA) and has identified, in the enclosure, an area where additional information is needed to complete the review.
This RAI was discussed with your staff, RAI B.1.3-2, and a mutually agreeable date for this response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-4053 or e-mail JGR@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jonathan Rowley, Project Manager License Renewal Section A License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page
January 12, 2005 Mr. Mano K. Nazar Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Bridgman, MI 49106
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Nazar:
By letter dated October 31, 2003, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M or the applicant) submitted an application, pursuant to Title 10 Code of the Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the operating licenses for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP),
Units 1 and 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application (LRA) and has identified, in the enclosure, an area where additional information is needed to complete the review.
This RAI was discussed with your staff, RAI B.1.3-2, and a mutually agreeable date for this response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-4053 or e-mail JGR@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jonathan Rowley, Project Manager License Renewal Section A License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page ADAMS Accession no.: ML050120254 Document Name: E:\\Filenet\\ML050120254.wpd OFFICE PM:RLEP LA:RLEP SC:RLEP NAME JRowley M. Jenkins SLee DATE 01 / 12 /05 01 / 12 /05 01 / 12 /05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
cc:
Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall P.O. Box 818 Bridgman, MI 49106 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, MI 49127 David W. Jenkins, Esquire Indiana Michigan Power Company One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Mayor, City of Bridgman P.O. Box 366 Bridgman, MI 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State Capitol Lansing, MI 48909 Mr. John A. Zwolinski Director, Design Engineering and Regulatory Affairs Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107 Patricia Lougheed 2443 Warrenville Rd.
Lisle, IL 60532 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Waste and Hazardous Materials Div.
Hazardous Waste & Radiological Protection Section Nuclear Facilities Unit Constitution Hall, Lower-Level North 525 West Allegan Street P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, MI 48909-7741 Michael J. Finissi, Plant Manager Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Joseph N. Jensen, Site Vice President Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Richard J. Grumbir Project Manager, License Renewal Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107
DISTRIBUTION: Ltr. to: M. Nazar, Re: RAI for DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Date: January 12, 2005 HARD COPY RLEP RF J. Rowley, 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 C. Julian M. Modes J. Vora L. Kozak J. Donohew PMNS Receptionists G. Galletti L. Lund S. Coffin T. Chan J. Minns R. Gramm A. Howell M. Shuaibi J. Strasma, RIV M. Kotzalas OPA NRR/ADPT secretary (RidsNrrAdpt)
Enclosure DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA)
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
RAI B.1.3-2 Boral Surveillance: Monitoring and Trending Part 1 In recent discussions between the applicant, NRC Regional III inspector, and NRC staff, the licensee explained that trending of Boral coupon measurements is not performed because the measurement uncertainty is equivalent to the acceptance criteria (5% B-10 decrease and 10%
thickness increase). The staffs understanding is that the coupon either passes or fails the acceptance test based on these two criteria. According to the Boral Surveillance Program (12-THP-6020-SP-203), failure would require an investigation, engineering evaluation, and perhaps additional testing (such as blackness testing of the storage racks). Also according to the Boral Surveillance Program, the remaining measurement parameters are used to detect early indications of degradation and may prompt a change in measurement schedule.
In a letter dated August 11, 2004, the applicant stated that the most recent coupon thickness change ranged from -0.67% to 1.19%. This suggests a measurement precision better than
+/-10%. The staff asks that the licensee respond to the following:
(1)
Please clarify the capability to measure and evaluate coupon thickness.
(2)
Please provide the results of the coupon evaluations. How did the measured neutron attenuation and thickness compare to the acceptance criteria? What were the results and conclusions from the other measurement parameters used to detect early indications of Boral degradation? If early indications of degradation were detected, what actions were taken?
(3)
In a clarification to RAI B.1.3-1, the applicant states 5% variation in B-10 areal density is within the ?usual uncertainty tolerance applied in the nuclear criticality safety analyses.
Please confirm that this value was used in the most recent criticality safety analyses for CNP.
Part 2 The ?Schedule of Coupon Surveillance in the applicants Boral Surveillance Program specifies a range of years over which the first five test coupons can be removed from the rack for evaluation. According to the schedule, the time between coupon evaluations can range from 1 year to 5 years. For example, Coupon #3 and Coupon #4 could be pulled 3 years and 8 years, respectively, after removal of Coupon #1. Starting with Coupon #6, however, the evaluation interval is 5 years.
To determine the significance of establishing a 5-year test interval, the staff asks that the applicant respond to the following:
(1)
Please provide the dates that coupons were actually removed and evaluated, and
Enclosure (2)
Please explain how the coupon removal/evaluation times are determined. For example, how did the applicant decide if Coupon #4 would be removed and evaluated 6, 7, or 8 years after removal of Coupon #1?