ML050620124

Summary of Meeting Held on February 2, 2005, Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Representatives to Discuss Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

ML050620124
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	03/03/2005
From:	Le N NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP
To:	Constellation Energy Group
Le N. B., NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1458
References
Download: ML050620124 (10)

Text

March 3, 2005 LICENSEE: Constellation Energy Group Inc.

FACILITY: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 2005, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) STAFF AND THE CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP INC. REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS THE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION On February 2, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff met with representatives of Constellation Energy Group Inc., (Constellation or the applicant) in a public meeting to discuss status of the staff review schedule for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (NMP1 and NMP2) license renewal application (LRA). The staff stated at the meeting that there is a potential schedule impact on the standard 22 month time frame of the staff review of the NMP1 and NMP2 LRA. The reason for this potential schedule impact is due to inadequate and late responses from the applicant to the staffs audit questions and request for additional information. The staff had communicated this concern to the applicant in a December 7, 2004, letter (ADAMS ML043450440). The list of attendees is provided in , and the meeting agenda is provided in Enclosure 2. A summary of the meeting discussion is provided in Enclosure 3. Staff followup questions discussed during the meeting are provided in Enclosure 4.

/RA/

Ngoc (Tommy) B. Le, 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. 50-220 and 50-410

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page

March 3, 2005 LICENSEE: Constellation Energy Group Inc.

FACILITY: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 2005, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) STAFF AND THE CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP INC. REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS THE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION On February 2, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff met with representatives of Constellation Energy Group Inc., (Constellation or the applicant) in a public meeting to discuss status of the staff review schedule for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (NMP1 and NMP2) license renewal application (LRA). The staff stated at the meeting that there is a potential schedule impact on the standard 22 month time frame of the staff review of the NMP1 and NMP2 LRA. The reason for this potential schedule impact is due to inadequate and late responses from the applicant to the staffs audit questions and request for additional information. The staff had communicated this concern to the applicant in a December 7, 2004, letter (ADAMS ML043450440). The list of attendees is provided in , and the meeting agenda is provided in Enclosure 2. A summary of the meeting discussion is provided in Enclosure 3. Staff followup questions discussed during the meeting are provided in Enclosure 4.

/RA/

Ngoc (Tommy) B. Le, 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. 50-220 and 50-410

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page Adams Accession No.: ML050620124 DOCUMENT NAME:E:\Filenet\ML050620124.wpd OFFICE: LA:RLEP PM:RLEP SC:RLEP PD:RLEP NAME: YEdmonds NBLe SLee PTKuo DATE: 3/ 02 /05 3/ 02 /05 3/ 02 /05 3/03 /05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Regional Administrator, Region I Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Winston & Strawn 475 Allendale Road 1400 L Street, NW King of Prussia, PA 19406 Washington, DC 20005-3502 Resident Inspector Mr. Michael J. Wallace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission President P.O. Box 126 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Lycoming, NY 13093 c/o Constellation Energy Group, Inc.

750 East Pratt Street Supervisor Baltimore, MD 21202 Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382 Mr. James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire Oswego, NY 13126 Counsel Constellation Energy Group Mr. James R. Evans 750 East Pratt Street, 5th Floor LIPA Baltimore, MD 21202 P.O. Box 129 Lycoming, NY 10393 Mr. Peter R. Smith, President New York State Energy, Research, and Charles Donaldson, Esquire Development Authority Assistant Attorney General 17 Columbia Circle New York Department of Law Albany, NY 12203-6399 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute Mr. Paul D. Eddy 1776 I St., NW, Suite 400 Electric Division Washington, DC 20006-3708 NYS Department of Public Service Agency Building 3 Mr. Mark Flaherty Empire State Plaza Manager - Fleet Licensing Albany, NY 12223 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 1503 Lake Rd.

C. Adrienne Rhodes Ontario, NY 14519 Chairman and Executive Director State Consumer Protection Board Mr. M. Steven Leonard 5 Empire State Plaza, Suite 2101 General Supervisor - Nuclear Regulatory Albany, NY 12223-1556 Matters Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Kathryn M. Sutton, Esquire P.O. Box 63 Winston & Strawn Lycoming, NY 13093 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. Peter Mazzaferro Site Project Manager - License Renewal Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Mike Heffley Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Constellation Generation Group 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 500 Annapolis, MD 21401 Mr. James A. Spina Vice President Nine Mile Point Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093

DISTRIBUTION: Meeting Summary to Licensee: Constellation Energy Group (NMP 1 and NMP 2), Re: Summary of mtg held on 2/2/05, Dated: March 3, 2005 Adams Accession No.: ML050620124 HARD COPY RLEP RF 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 K. Winsberg (RidsOgcMailCenter)

R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy S. Smith (srs3)

S. Duraiswamy Y. L. (Renee) Li RLEP Staff C. Holden R. Laufer P. Tam B. Fuller, RI E. Knutson, RI J. Trapp, RI T. Mensah Receptionist OPA PMNS

ATTENDANCE LIST NRC MEETING WITH CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.

NINE MILE POINT, UNITS 1 AND 2 FEBRUARY 2, 2005 Name Organization Tommy Le NRR/RLEP Jake Zimmerman NRR/RLEP Samson Lee NRR/RLEP P T Kuo NRR/RLEP Kaihwa Hsu NRR/RLEP Greg Galletti NRR/IPSB Mauri Lemoncelli NRC/OGC Duc Nguyen NRR/DE/EEIB Pat Patnaik NRR/DE/EMCB Hans Ashar NRR/DE/EMCB Matt Yoder NRR/DE/EMCB Angelo Stubbs NRR/DSSA/SPLB John Fair NRR/DE/EMEB Michael Kennedy ISL INC.

Jon Woodfield ISL INC.

George Wrobel Constellation Michael Fallins Constellation David Dellario Constellation Carey W. Fleming Constellation Peter Mazzaferro Constellation (via telephone)

Enclosure 1

NRC MEETING WITH CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.

CONCERNING THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ROOM OWFN 12B4 AGENDA FEBRUARY 2, 2005 I. Introduction/Opening remarks 5 minutes II. Discussion of the staff review schedule of the 45 minutes Nine Mile Point license renewal application Feedback to NMP Applicant regarding completeness of the Applicant responses to the Staff RAIs III. Public Comments 5 minutes IV. Adjourn Enclosure 2

MEETING

SUMMARY

A. Discussion of the Staff Review Schedule and Potential Impact on the standard 22 month time frame of the staff review of the Nine Mile Point License Renewal Application C The staff stated that there may be a potential schedule impact on the standard 22 month time frame of the staff review of the Nine Mile Point license renewal application because of inadequate and late responses from the applicant to the staffs audit questions and request for additional information. The staff communicated this concern to the applicant in a December 7, 2004, letter (ADAMS ML043450440).

The applicant provided the staff status of corrective actions they had taken as a result of the staff December 7, 2004, letter. These corrective actions were also stated in the applicant letter dated January 3, 2005, (ADAMS ML050120217) in response to the staffs December 7, 2004, letter.

C The applicant stated that LRA Tables for Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 have been revised. These tables describe the applicants aging management review results. Revised Table for Section 3.1 (ADAMS ML043490370) was submitted to the staff on December 6, 2004. Revised Tables for Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 of the LRA would be submitted to the staff by February 4, 2005. The applicant was revising these tables to incorporate information resulted from questions asked by the staff audit team and from other staffs requests for additional information.

C The staff stated that it will review the revised LRA Table 3.1 for completeness and technical adequacy. The staff indicated that it would review the revised LRA Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 when submitted.

C The staff discussed the potential schedule impact. The staff needed to allocate additional review resources due to the revision to the application information. In addition, there are competing priorities for the staff resource in the review of other concurrent license renewal applications. The staff will reassess the impact of the NMP LRA reviewing schedule within the next few weeks.

B. Feedback to NMP Applicant regarding completeness of Applicant responses to the Staff RAIs C The staff provided preliminary feedback to the applicant regarding the adequacy of NMP responses to the staff Requests for Additional Information (RAIs). The staff has not completed its review. However, some staff reviewers have identified areas of inadequate responses to the staffs RAIs. The staff discussed examples of the incompleteness of NMPs responses to the staff RAIs (See Enclosure 4).

C. Public Comments C There were no public comments received.

Enclosure 3 Examples of staffs followup questions to NMPs RAI responses The staff discussed examples of the incompleteness of the NMPs RAI responses. The examples are related to (1) the NMPs November 22, 2004, response to staffs RAIs regarding LRA Section 2.0, Scoping And Screening Methodology For Identifying Structures And Components Subject To Aging Management Review, And Implementation Results (ADAMS ML050060182), and (2) the NMPs December 6, 2004, response to staff RAIs regarding LRA Section 4.0, Time-Limited Aging Analyses (ADAMS ML043500312).

(1) Staff required followup questions due to inadequate NMPs responses to Staffs RAIs for LRA Section 2.0, Scoping And Screening Methodology For Identifying Structures And Components Subject To Aging Management Review, And Implementation Results RAI 2.1-1 The staff asked the applicant to confirm that they considered high energy line break (HELB) as part of their design basis event (DBE) reviews for both NMP1 and NMP2 plants.

RAI 2.1-4 The staff requested the applicant review their 10 CFR 54.21(a)(2) evaluation to verify that the equivalent anchors and equipment within the anchor boundaries were included within scope. Specifically, with respect to RAI 2.1-4(a), the staff requested the applicant to verify that for systems which use plant equipment as the equivalent anchors, the equipment was included in scope. Additionally, for systems that are already in scope but which transition outside of the safety-related buildings, the staff requested the applicant to verify that equivalent anchor was also included in those cases where the equivalent anchor was located beyond the building boundary. For both cases the staff requested the applicant to document their scoping evaluations that were used to verify these conditions.

The staff requested the applicant to provide additional information for RAI 2.1-4(b) to identify how many non safety-related (NSR) components were excluded from scope based on the use of the NSR Systems, Structures, and Components (SSCs) which Functionally Interact With SR SSCs' criterion. The staff requested the applicant to confirm that the criterion was not used to exclude any NSR SSCs that could inhibit a SR SSC from performing its intended functions.

RAI 2.1-7 The staff asked the applicant if the fire wrap identified in response to the staff question on plant insulation was initially included in scope or brought into scope as a result of their evaluation of the staff RAI.

(2) Staff required followup questions due to inadequate NMPs responses to Staffs RAIs for LRA Section 4.0, Time-Limited Aging Analyses RAI 4.3.1-3 The applicant's December 6, 2004, response to RAI 4.3.1-3 was not clear regarding how fatigue usage prior to the year 2000 was considered in the NMP1 fatigue evaluations. The staff requested the applicant to provide detail regarding how the number of cycles experienced prior to year 2000 were accounted for in the fatigue evaluations.

Enclosure 4

For Section 4.3.4 of the LRA regarding non-ASME Class 1 piping, the applicant stated that fatigue of non-ASME Class 1 piping and components included in the Fatigue Monitoring Program (FMP) will be adequately managed in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(c)(1)(iii) requirement. The staff asked the applicant to explain why the FMP is relied on to manage piping systems governed by the 7,000 cycle design limit.

RAI 4.6.2-1 The applicant's December 6, 2004, response to RAI 4.6.2-1 did not explain why the estimated fatigue usage for NMP1 torus attached piping is conservative given that the number of past Safety Relief Valve (SRV) actions is unknown. The staff asked the applicant to provide details on how many design transients have been experienced and to explain why the number of design transients assumed in the fatigue evaluation are bounding given that SRV actuations have not been tracked.