ML092870537

Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Duane Arnold Energy Center License Renewal Application - Batch 2

ML092870537
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	10/16/2009
From:	Harris B License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	Costanzo C NextEra Energy Duane Arnold
Harris B, NRR/DLR, 415-2277
References
TAC MD9769
Download: ML092870537 (7)

Text

October 16, 2009 Mr. Christopher Costanzo Vice President, Nuclear Plant Support NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION -

BATCH 2 (TAC NO. MD9769)

Dear Mr. Costanzo:

By letter dated September 30, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated January 23, 2009, FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, submitted an application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54) for renewal of Operating License DPR-49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the staff) is reviewing this application in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1800, Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. During its review from August 10, 2009, through August 14, 2009, the staff has identified areas where additional information is needed to complete the review. The staffs requests for additional information are included in the Enclosure. Further requests for additional information may be issued in the future.

Items in the enclosure were discussed with Ken Putnam, of your staff, and a mutually agreeable date for the response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me by telephone at 301-415-2277 or by e-mail at Brian.Harris2@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Brian K. Harris, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-331

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page

October 16, 2009 Mr. Christopher Costanzo Vice President, Nuclear Plant Support NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION -

BATCH 2 (TAC NO. MD9769)

Dear Mr. Costanzo:

By letter dated September 30, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated January 23, 2009, FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, submitted an application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54) for renewal of Operating License DPR-49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the staff) is reviewing this application in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1800, Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. During its review from August 10, 2009, through August 14, 2009, the staff has identified areas where additional information is needed to complete the review. The staffs requests for additional information are included in the Enclosure. Further requests for additional information may be issued in the future.

Items in the enclosure were discussed with Ken Putnam, of your staff, and a mutually agreeable date for the response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me by telephone at 301-415-2277 or by e-mail at Brian.Harris2@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Brian K. Harris, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-331

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

See next page ADAMS Accession No.: ML092870537 OFFICE: PM:RPB1:DLR LA:RPOB:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME: BHarris SFigueroa BPham BHarris (Signature)

DATE: 10/15/09 10/15/09 10/15/09 10/16/09 OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD

Letter to Christopher Costanzo from Brian K. Harris dated October 16, 2009

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION -

BATCH 2 (TAC NO. MD9769)

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRer1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRer2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource RidsNrrDciCvib Resource RidsNrrDciCpnb Resource RidsNrrDciCsgb Resource RidsNrrDraAfpb Resource RidsNrrDraApla Resource RidsNrrDeEmcb Resource RidsNrrDeEeeb Resource RidsNrrDssSrxb Resource RidsNrrDssSbpb Resource RidsNrrDssScvb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource

---

B. Harris C. Eccelston M. Spencer K. Feintuch

Duane Arnold Energy Center cc:

Mr. M. S. Ross Ms. Melanie Rasmussen Vice President and Associate Radiation Control Program Director General Counsel Bureau of Radiological Health Florida Power & Light Company Iowa Department of Public Health P.O. Box 14000 Lucas State Office Building, 5th Floor Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 321 East 12th Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 Ms. Marjan Mashhadi Senior Attorney Chairman, Linn County Florida Power & Light Company Board of Supervisors 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 930 1st Street SW Suite 220 Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Raj Kundalkar, Vice President Mr. Steven R. Catron Fleet Organizational Support Manager, Regulatory Affairs Florida Power & Light Company Duane Arnold Energy Center P.O. Box 14000 3277 DAEC Road Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Palo, IA 52324 Mr. McHenry Cornell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Licensing and Performance Resident Inspector=s Office Improvement Rural Route #1 Florida Power & Light Company Palo, IA 52324 P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Mano Nazar Senior Vice President and Nuclear Chief Operating Officer Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408 Mr. D. A. Curtland Plant Manager Duane Arnold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324-9785 Abdy Khanpour Vice President, Engineering Support Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408

DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)

RAI 4.3.1-1.1

Background

License renewal application (LRA) Section 4.3.1 states that in 1998 Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) performed re-assessment of DAEC Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) to remove excess conservatism from the existing fatigue calculations for all RPV components, and to incorporate transient cycles projected to occur at 40 years based on actual plant operation as of that time.

Issue With the original design fatigue analysis and the 1998 reassessment together, DAEC has two sets of fatigue analyses results for the RPV components. However, it is unclear to the staff, which of the two analyses the Cumulative Usage Factor (CUF) 40 year column of LRA Table 4.3-2 represents since no CUF results are shown in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Request Clarify which of the analyses that the CUF 40 year column of LRA Table 4.3-2 represents the original design analysis, or the 1998 reassessment. If it represents the 1998 reassessment then why do 60-year projected CUF values for some locations such as Main Closure and Control Rod Drive-Heat Rejection System Nozzle still show additional significant reductions when the excessive conservatism (including reduction in transient cycles based on projections) have already been removed in the reassessment analysis? If it represents the original design analysis, then what was the true purpose of the reassessment and where were the results used?

RAI B.4.2-5

Background

LRA Section B.4.2.5, on operating experience, states that in 2007, a nuclear oversight evaluator found that procedural direction did not exist to record cumulative time spent in a hot-standby condition. The applicant states that the issue was addressed in accordance with the corrective action program.

Issue The onsite basis document, LRAP-XM01, Rev. 1, states that after investigation it was concluded that hour count capturing was removed from the procedure. However, there was no discussion as to what extent would the lacking of hour and minute portion of the time records impair the accuracy of the monitored transient data.

ENCLOSURE

Request

1. Provide the operating period, in terms of years and months, during which the issue existed.

2. Provide justification that the monitored transients are valid during this period.

RAI B.4.2-6

Background

LRA Section B.4.2.5, on operating experience, states that in June 2000 and November 2006, the DAEC reactor bottom head and drain line pipe experienced rapid temperature drops related to reactor scrams.

Issue The LRA states that DAEC took corrective actions to evaluate if the current design calculations require specific thermal cycle counting for attached piping, or do the calculations ensure that vessel cycle counting will adequately track attached piping cycles. However, the LRA does not indicate that fatigue analysis has been performed for the November 2006, event.

Request

1. Clarify whether a follow-up fatigue analysis was performed for the November 2006, incident and whether additional cycles were added to an appropriate representative transient to reflect both incidents (2000 and 2006). Identify the name of the representing transient.

2. Summarize the status of the DAEC plan of tracking thermal cycles for the attached piping, as stated in the corrective actions.

RAI 4.2.8-1

Background

Generic Aging Lessons Learned Table IV A1, Item IV.A1-4, paragraph (c) of the aging management program (AMP) column requires that the upper shelf energy (USE) or equivalent margin analysis (EMA) be performed as part of time-limited aging analysis for ferritic materials that are exposed to a neutron fluence value greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV).

Issue Section 4.2.2, Table 4.2.2-1 in LRA does not include EMA for the N-2 and N-16 nozzle materials and the associated welds.

Request The staff requests that the applicant submit the following information with respect to the applicants EMA evaluation of these nozzles and the associated welds.

1. Initial (un-irradiated) USE values (if available) for the N-2 and N-16 nozzle materials and the associated welds. If the initial USE values are available, calculate the percent USE reduction for nozzle and the welds per the requirements specified Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials.

2. If the initial USE values for N-2 and N-16 nozzle materials and the associated welds are not available, an EMA per the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP)-74-A, BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines, is required.

RAI 4.2.8-2

Background

In Section 4.2.5 of the LRA, DAEC stated that N-2 nozzle and N-16 nozzle have high adjusted reference temperature (ART) values.

Issue The projected ART values of the nozzle materials were reported in Table 4.2.3-1 however, the nozzle weld materials ART values are not listed in this table.

Request The staff requests that the applicant submit the following information which will be used to evaluate whether the weld materials used in Nozzles N-2 and N-16 would have adequate toughness until the end of the extended period of operation:

• Weld metal chemistry

• American Welding Society weld electrode/filler wire classification and the heat/lot number

• Initial (un-irradiated) reference nil ductility transition temperature (RT NDT) of the weld materials

• 1/4T neutron fluence value of the nozzle welds at 54 effective full-power years

• ART values for the nozzle weld materials.