ML050260697
| ML050260697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/2005 |
| From: | Morgan M NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | Koehl D Nuclear Management Co |
| Rodriguez VM, RLEP/DRIP/NRR, 415-3703 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML050260697 (7) | |
Text
January 26, 2005 Mr. Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice President Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Koehl:
By letter dated February 25, 2004, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (NMC or the applicant) submitted an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), 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, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.
These RAIs were discussed with your staff, Mr. Jim Knorr, 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 301-415-2232 or e-mail MJM2@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/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
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page
January 26, 2005 Mr. Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice President Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Koehl:
By letter dated February 25, 2004, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (NMC or the applicant) submitted an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), 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, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.
These RAIs were discussed with your staff, Mr. Jim Knorr, 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 301-415-2232 or e-mail MJM2@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/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
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page Adams accession no.: ML050260697 Document Name: E:\\Filenet\\ML050260697.wpd OFFICE PM:RLEP SC:RLEP NAME MMorgan SLee DATE 1/25/05 1/26/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Jonathan Rogoff, Esq.
Vice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Mr. Frederick D. Kuester President and Chief Executive Officer We Generation 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 James Connolly Manager, Regulatory Affairs Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, WI 54228 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Jeffrey Kitsembel Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 David Weaver Nuclear Asset Manager Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 John Paul Cowan Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Douglas E. Cooper Senior Vice President - Group Operations Palisades Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Roger A. Newton 3623 Nagawicka Shores Drive Hartland, WI 53029 James E. Knorr License Renewal Project Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Point Beach Nuclear Plant Two Rivers, WI 54241 Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
DISTRIBUTION: Ltr to D. Koehl, RAI for the Review of the point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 &
2, ReL LRA Dated: January 26, 2005 Adams accession no.: ML050260697 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 P. Lougheed, RIII J. Strasma, RIII A. Stone, RIII H. Chernoff W. Ruland C. Marco L. Raghavan T. Mensah OPA
Enclosure POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA)
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
Section 2.4 - Scoping and Screening Results; Structures RAI 2.4-1 After the listing of each component group in LRA Section 2.4, the word All is indicated. What is the intent from the usage of the word all as depicted in your application?
RAI 2.4-2 The LRA Section 2.4 does not appear to contain information about tanks and their foundations.
Provide a list of all tanks and their foundations for each unit. Identify the tanks and their foundations that are or should be in scope and define their intended functions. Identify the tanks and their foundations that are not or should not be in scope and the basis for their exclusion. Specify where the AMR for each in-scope tank and tank foundation is or should be located in the LRA.
RAI 2.4-3 The LRA Section 2.4 does not appear to contain information about thermal insulations on piping and /or structures that performs an intended function. The staff is aware that the concrete temperatures around the main steam and feed water lines were found to be about 380°F for an unknown period of time. Thermal insulation is usually used between the hot piping and concrete to maintain the maximum temperature of concrete below the threshold levels of 150°F for general areas and 200°F for local areas around hot penetrations. Thermal insulation is passive and long-lived, and serves an intended function in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2).
Therefore, the applicant is requested to (1) identify the locations of the thermal insulations that serve an intended function in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2), (2) describe plant-specific operating experience related to the degradation of thermal insulation, and (3) describe the scoping and screening results of thermal insulations and provide technical bases for their exclusion.
RAI 2.4-4 LRA Table 2.4.2-1 lists wood/outdoor as a component group in scope and missile barrier as the intended function for the control building structure. Explain what this wood/outdoor component is and why and how the wood component serves as a missile barrier.
RAI 2.4-5 LRA Section 2.4.3 states that the intake crib and the discharge flumes are connected to the forebay and the circulating water pumphouse structures and provide functions for water intake and discharge, respectively. However, only the forebay and the circulating water pumphouse structures are in scope. Provide your rational for excluding the intake crib and the discharge flumes from license renewal.
Enclosure RAI 2.4-6 The staff was unable to identify whether the traveling water screens, as shown in the License Renewal drawing LR-M-212-SH-2, are included in scope. If they are in scope, please indicate where in the LRA they are discussed. If not, provide your rational for their exclusion.
RAI 2.4-7 LRA Table 2.4.4-1 lists crane rails supports as a component group in scope. Explain whether the crane, rails, hoists, and lifting devices are also in scope. If not, provide your rational for their exclusion.
RAI 2.4-8 LRA Section 2.4.8 states that yard transformer and tower concrete foundations, and transformer fire walls are not in scope. Explain the function of each item listed above and provide your rational for their exclusion.
RAI 2.4-9 LRA Section 2.4.9 states the reactor cavity manipulator and SFP bridge cranes are not in scope. Provide evidence that their collapse would not damage any safe shutdown equipment.
RAI 2.4-10 LRA Section 2.4.12 states that the reinforced concrete foundation slab and switchgear anchors are in scope, but the remaining portions of the 13.8 KV switchgear building structure are not in scope. Is the foundation slab supported by foundation footings? If so, the foundation footings should also be in scope. Since the interior walls, exterior masonry block and concrete walls, and the roof are not in scope, provide evidence that their collapse would not damage any safe shutdown equipment.
RAI 2.4-11 LRA Section 2.4.13 states that the above grade block wall portion of the superstructure, including the roof, of the fuel oil pumphouse structure is not in scope. Provide evidence that their collapse would not damage any safe shutdown equipment.
RAI 2.4-12 LRA Section 2.4.14 states that turbine generator G05 and its associated mechanical and electrical equipment is housed in the gas turbine building structure, and is relied upon as the alternate AC power source during a station blackout. It is also relied upon to supply power to safe shutdown loads through the alternate shutdown equipment during a fire in the 4160 VAC switchgear. LRA Section 2.4.14 further states that only the concrete foundation slab and the turbine-generator concrete equipment pedestals are in scope, and the remaining portions of the structure, which include the steel superstructure, are not in scope. Provide evidence that the functions of turbine generator G05 and its associated mechanical and electrical equipment will not be impaired due to the collapse of the remaining portions of the gas turbine building structure.