ML100610216
| ML100610216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/2010 |
| From: | Lisa Regner License Renewal Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | |
| Regner L M, NRR/DLR, 415-1906 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML100610216 (10) | |
Text
March 12, 2010 LICENSEE: Arizona Public Service Company FACILITY: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON FEBRUARY 24, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the staff) and representatives of Arizona Public Service Company (the applicant) held a telephone conference call on February 24, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (RAI) concerning the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs draft RAI. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the draft RAI questions 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/
Lisa M. Regner, Sr. Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls: See next page
ML100610216 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing LRegner DWrona LRegner DATE 03/08/10 03/05/10 03/09/10 03/12/10
Memorandum to Arizona Public Service Company from Lisa M. Regner dated March 12, 2010
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON FEBRUARY 24, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb 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 RidsOpaMail Resource
L. Regner D. Drucker R. Hall B. Mizuno, OGC R. Treadway, RIV G. Pick, RIV
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FEBRUARY 24, 2010 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Lisa Regner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Abdul Sheikh NRC Bryce Lehman NRC Ahmed Quaou NRC Hans Ashar NRC Angela Krainik Arizona Public Service Company (APS)
Glenn Michael APS Jim Johnson Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (STARS) Alliance Eric Blocher STARS Marsha Eades Columbia Generating Station ENCLOSURE 1
DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Arizona Public Service Company (the applicant) held a telephone conference call on February 24, 2010, to discuss and clarify the following draft request for additional information (RAI) concerning the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, license renewal application (LRA).
DRAFT RAI 4.5-1
Background
Section 4.5 of the LRA stated that the 25-year containment prestressed tendons surveillance of Unit 1 was not complete in time to be included in the LRA; therefore, a tendon regression analysis was performed on Unit 1 and 3 horizontal and vertical tendon data including the 15-year surveillances for Units 1 and 3, and on the 20-year surveillance data for Unit 2.
Issue Section 4.5 (pages 4.5-5 through 4.6-16) of the LRA does not include the results of the 25-year containment prestressed tendons surveillance of Unit 1 that was completed in 2008.
Section 4.5 should incorporate the data and results from the 25-year tendon surveillance of the Unit 1 containment, so that the staff can confirm that the loss of prestress is expected to remain within acceptable values for the period of extended operation, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(c)(1)(ii).
Request Provide the data and results from the 25-year tendon surveillance of the Unit 1 containment.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This question will be sent as a formal RAI.
DRAFT RAI 4.5-2
Background
Section 4.5 of the LRA stated that NRC staff approved a revised schedule for the containment prestressed tendons surveillance in Relief Request RR-L4. The Relief Request RR-L4 permits a 10-year interval between tendon prestress surveillance for the three units.
Issue RR-L4 is valid for the 40-years of operation during the current licensing basis. The LRA did not address the period of extended operation.
ENCLOSURE 2
Request Provide information on how the aging of the containment tendons will be managed during the period of extended operation.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This question will be sent as a formal RAI.
DRAFT RAI 4.6-1
Background
In LRA Section 4.6.1, the applicant states the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) contains no description of cyclic loads or design cycles for the entire containment building. The UFSAR, Section 3.8.1.5.4.B, describes design cycles that are to be included in the design of the liner plate and penetrations. The applicant further states that the review the design specification, design report, and design calculations found time dependent aspects of some penetration designs, but none for liner plate design, and therefore the liner plate design is not supported by a time-limited aging analysis (TLAA). As a result the applicant did not evaluate fatigue of the liner plate for cyclic loading during the period of extended operation.
Issue The UFSAR, Section 3.8.1.5.4, Liner Plate System, item B, Loads, states that the following loads are considered in liner design:
- 1. Thermal cycling due to annual outdoor temperature variations where:
- a. Daily temperature variations do not penetrate a significant distance into the concrete shell to appreciably change the average temperature of the shell relative to the liner plate
- b. The number of cycles for this loading is 40 cycles for plant life of 40-years
- 2. Thermal cycling due to variation in the interior temperature of the containment during the heatup and cooldown of the reactor system in which the number of cycles is assumed to be 500 cycles for plant life of 40-years
- 3. Thermal cycling due to the loss of coolant accident is assumed to be one cycle.
Request Evaluate the liner plate system for cyclic loading during period of extended operation consistent with UFSAR, Section 3.8.1.5.4.B, requirements or provide additional technical basis to demonstrate this evaluation is not required.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This question will be sent as a formal RAI.
DRAFT RAI 4.7.8-1
Background
Section 4.7.8 of the LRA provided details of a TLAA performed for building absolute or differential heave or settlement, including possible effects of changes in a perched groundwater lens. The purpose of this TLAA is to demonstrate that the assumptions for the building settlements used in the original design will remain valid for the period of extended operation.
Issue The first paragraph under Current Settlement Monitoring Activities on page 4.7-14, states that the Structures Monitoring Program monitors foundation responses and ground movement of the major structures on five-year intervals. A review of the applicants Structures Monitoring Program (B2.1.32) showed that similar wording is included in the program description on page B-92. The applicant did not specify which structures would be monitored during the period of extended operation and how the inspection frequency will be adjusted as described in the UFSAR, Section 2.5.4.13, in the event post-construction settlement reaches 90 percent of the design criteria values.
Request Provide the following information:
a) List the structures included in the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 that will be monitored for the effects of settlement during the period of extended opertation. In addition, provide a technical basis for excluding any structure that performs an intended function pursuant to 10 CFR 54.4 (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(3).
b) List the structures included in the scope of 10 CFR 54.4, that will be monitored on a different frequency or using different instrumentation than specified in the UFSAR, Section 2.5.4.13 and Table 2.5-19.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This question will be sent as a formal RAI.
DRAFT RAI 4.7.8-2
Background
The results of settlement monitoring program performed for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station are summarized in Table 4.7-2 of the LRA.
Issue The post-construction differential settlement measured in 2003 between the Unit 2 auxiliary and the radwaste buildings exceeds the maximum allowable value of 0.5 inches by nearly
75 percent. In addition, post construction differential settlement in Units 1 and 3 between the auxiliary and the radwaste buildings is about 90 percent of the maximum estimated value.
Request The applicant is requested to provide the following information:
a) Post construction settlement and post-construction differential settlement data for the 1998 and 2008 inspections for the same locations as tabulated in Table 4.7-2. Include data for the marker between the radwaste and control buildings where the differential settlement was measured in 2003 as 0.4332 inches.
b) Post 2003 settlement data for marker SM-31, including the data recorded with increased frequency.
c) Any corrective actions taken to address the impact of exceeding the maximum allowable post-construction differential settlement on Unit 2 structures and critical piping.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the question is clear. This question will be sent as a formal RAI.
DRAFT RAI 4.7.8-3
Background
LRA Section 4.7.8 describes the impact of perched groundwater level increase or decrease on foundation stability and settlement. The applicant concluded that the perched groundwater levels will not exceed the levels assumed for building foundation designs and will therefore not affect building stability. The applicant stated in the LRA that the only potential sources of significant recharge of the perched groundwater lens in the vicinity of the units are the 85-acre and 45-acre reservoirs and noted that the reservoirs were lined in 2006 with a double liner system which should prevent any future recharge of the shallow aquifer from the reservoirs.
The applicant also noted that the wells in the vicinity of the reservoirs have not yet shown any effects of increased leakage to the groundwater. In reviewing the above information, the staff was unclear whether the applicant credits monitoring of the perched groundwater level and the double liner system for evaluation of the TLAA, in addition to settlement monitoring activities conducted in accordance with its Structures Monitoring Program (B2.1.32).
Issue The information in LRA 4.7.8 as summarized above, is qualitative in nature and does not include quantitative data obtained by the applicant to disposition of the impact of perched groundwater lens on building foundation heave, settlement, and stability during the period of extended operation pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(C)(1)(i).
Request The applicant is requested to provide the following information:
- 1. The post-construction survey results on which the applicant based its conclusion that perched groundwater level will not exceed the assumed building foundation designs during the period of extended operation. The applicant should indicate when the survey was conducted.
- 2. The results of monitoring activities for the wells in the vicinity of the reservoirs on which the applicant based its conclusion that there is little likelihood of groundwater rising high enough to threaten foundation stability in the future. The applicant should indicate if the monitoring activities are periodic and would continue through the period of extended operation.
- 3. A brief description of activities credited for managing aging effects of the double system liner applied to the reservoirs.
Discussion:
The applicant clarified that the discussion on the perched groundwater lens level and the double liner system was provided as additional information. Monitoring of groundwater lens and the double liner system are not credited for settlement. Only the settlement monitoring activities conducted in accordance with the Structures Monitoring Program are credited for managing aging of structural settlement during the period of extended operation. The staff found the applicants clarification acceptable. This question will be deleted.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 cc:
Mr. Steve Olea Mr. John C. Taylor, Director, Nuclear Arizona Corporation Commission Generation 1200 W. Washington Street El Paso Electric Company Phoenix, AZ 85007 340 E. Palm Lane, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Mr. Douglas Kent Porter, Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Mr. James Ray Law Department, Generation Resources Public Service Company of New Mexico P.O. Box 800 2401 Aztec NE, MS Z110 Rosemead, CA 91770 Albuquerque, NM 87107-4224 Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Geoffrey M. Cook U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 40 5000 Pacific Coast Highway, Bldg. D21 Buckeye, AZ 85326 San Clemente, CA 92672 Regional Administrator, Region IV Mr. Robert Henry U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Salt River Project 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400 6504 E. Thomas Road Arlington, TX 76011-4125 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Chairman Mr. Jeffrey T. Weikert Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Assistant General Counsel 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor El Paso Electric Company Phoenix, AZ 85003 Mail Location 167 123 W. Mills Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director El Paso, TX 79901 Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 S. 40th Street Mr. Eric Tharp Phoenix, AZ 85040 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Southern California Public Power Authority Mr. Ron Barnes, Director P.O. Box 51111, Room 1255-C Regulatory Affairs Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mail Station 7636 Mr. Brian Almon P.O. Box 52034 Public Utility Commission Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 William B. Travis Building P.O. Box 13326 Mr. Dwight C. Mims, Vice President 1701 N. Congress Avenue Regulatory Affairs and Plant Improvement Austin, TX 78701-3326 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mail Station 7605 Mr. Randall K. Edington P.O. Box 52034 Executive Vice President Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 7602 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034