ML102220476

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held on 8/4/10,Between Us NRC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Concerning Draft RAI Pertaining to the Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal Application
ML102220476
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 08/18/2010
From: Bennett Brady
License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Bennett Brady, DLR/NRR 415-2981
References
Download: ML102220476 (8)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 18, 2010 LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Hope Creek Generating Station

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 4,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on August 4, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's draft requests for additional information (D-RAls) concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's D-RAls. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items. Talking points for the meeting from the applicant and the staff are in Enclosure 3 and 4, respectively.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-354

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants
2. Summary of meeting discussion
3. Talking points for meeting provided by the applicant
4. Talking points for meeting provided by NRC cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AUGUST 4, 2010 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Bennett Brady U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

William Holston NRC David Alley NRC Bo Pham NRC Arthur Cunanan NRC Samuel Cuadrado De Jesus NRC John Hufnagel Exelon AI Fulvio Exelon Albert Piha Exelon Ali Fakhar PSEG Jim Melchionna PSEG Pete Tamburro Exelon Jim Stavely PSEG Dylan Cimock Exelon Gene Kelly Exelon Matt Murray PSEG Chris Wilson Exelon Paul Cervenka Exelon ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY

MEETING ON THE DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AUGUST 4,2010 The U,S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC held a telephone conference call on August 4,2010, to discuss and clarify the draft request for additional information (D-RAI) 8.2.1.24 concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station, license renewal application Buried Piping Program.

During the discussion, the PSEG discussed their proposed Buried Piping Program as outlined in the talking points in Enclosure 3. The NRC staff followed the discussion with their questions presented in Enclosure 4.

In conclusion, it was agreed that the staff would send the D-RAI as a formal RAI with one minor edit. The staff also suggested that the applicant consider the following discussion in its response:

1. cathodic protection and measures of the availability of the cathodic protection
2. plans for maintaining buried pipes during the period from 10 to 20 years in the period of extended operation
3. revisions to the Final Safety Analysis Report supplement and commitment list to clairify the number of inspections to be performed ENCLOSURE 2

Talking Points for August 4,2010 Discussion Provided by the Applicant Summary of Salem{SGS) and Hope Creek{HC) Buried Pipe Program (BPP)

  • Comprehensive, robust, and mature program that is consistent with GALL Rev. 1
  • Manages aging effects for 7 (Salem) and 3 (Hope Creek) in scope systems, as well as 33 additional systems not in scope
  • PSEG has committed to 22 direct excavations and inspections in the original LRAs submitted on 8/19/2009
  • 11 inspections performed within the 10 years prior to entering the PEO
  • 11 inspections performed within the 10 years following entry into the PEO
  • 10 inspections are based on each pipe material present for in scope buried systems (4 for Salem, 6 for Hope Creek)
  • One additional inspection is scheduled for the Salem stainless steel fuel transfer tube bellows and the associated carbon steel penetration sleeves
  • These inspections exceed the GALL Rev. 1 requirements Risk Ranking
  • The initial risk ranking process for the BPP has been completed
  • 12,000 buried and underground pipe segments are risk ranked (SGS & HC)
  • Ranks segments to allow ordered scheduling of direct and indirect inspections
  • Specific inspections for LR will drive excavations for coating and piping visual inspections
  • Off normal findings are entered into the Corrective Action Program (CAP)

NEllnitiative/EPRI

  • NEI has recognized that additional resources, structure, guidance, and integration may be required to avoid new industry events
  • PSEG is participating in the NEI Industry Initiative
  • PSEG BPP personnel are participating in the EPRI Buried Piping Integrity Group (BPIG)

Results

  • Currently ahead of schedule with commitments to NEllndustry Initiative
  • No installed age-related coating failures or pipe corrosion failures on in scope systems resulting in a loss of intended function
  • In 2009 and 2010 the BPP performed direct inspections on 5 of the 7 in scope systems for Salem and 2 of 3 in scope systems for Hope Creek. This includes representative sections from all high risk in scope systems for Salem (SW, AFW & Non-radioactive Drain) and 1 high risk in scope system for Hope Creek (FP).
  • During the 2010 Salem Unit 1 outage, portions of the buried carbon steel AF lines were excavated to provide access for guided wave (GW) examinations based on high risk ranking. Upon excavation, pipes were found to be missing coating and significantly degraded. Full excavation, GW and UT results showed wall loss along the entire length of pipe resulting in the decision to replace the lines entirely. The portions of the AF lines buried inside the fuel transfer tube area (FTTA) were replaced and rerouted above ground.

The cause of the degradation was due to a lack of coating and is believed to be an isolated incident where coating was physically removed in error during original construction. Extent of condition examined 2 CA and 2 SA lines running parallel to the AF lines, both found coated and wrapped. Accessible area inside the Unit 2 FTTA was also inspected as part of ENCLOSURE 3

-2 the extent of condition and AF lines were found to be coated. Excavation and inspection of the outside buried portion of the Unit 2 lines is scheduled for next refueling outage.

The Future

  • The PSEG BPP will use the existing program inspection results, industry operating experience and the risk ranking methodology as input and guidance in identifying the additional 11 excavation and inspection locations required as LRA commitments
  • The enhanced program will provide reasonable assurance that loss of material aging effect will be adequately managed so that the intended function of components within the scope of license renewal will be maintained consistent with the CLB during the PEO

Talking Points for August 4, 2010 Discussion Provided by the Staff

  • Hope Creek has six material types (i.e., steel, galvanized steel, ductile cast iron, gray cast iron, stainless steel, reinforced concrete); however, for the Buried Non-Steel Program the AMP does not state one inspection per material type. For the Buried Steel Piping Program, the FSAR supplement and commitment is not as clear as the program in regard to inspecting each material type in the 30 - 40 year time frame. For the Buried Non Steel Piping Program, the FSAR supplement and commitment list is very clear on the number of inspections.
  • Salem has four material types (Le., steel, ductile cast iron, gray cast iron, reinforced concrete). As noted below, Salem also has the stainless steel fuel transfer bellows tube and steel penetrations. There could be some ambiguity in relation to would a reinforced concrete inspection meet the requirement with no need to inspect the fuel transfer bellows in the AMP. For the Buried Steel Piping Program, the FSAR supplement and commitment is not as clear as the program in regard to inspecting each material type in the 30 - 40 year time frame. For the Buried Non Steel Piping Program, the FSAR supplement and commitment list is very clear on the number of inspections.
  • Will Hope Creek and Salem change their LRA Programs, UFSAR Supplement and commitments to in each case clearly reflect an inspection for each material type in the Buried Non Steel Piping Program?
  • During the direct excavations and inspections, what length of pipe be exposed? Will 360 degrees around the pipe be exposed?
  • What piping systems are cathodically protected?
  • If applicable, what is the condition of the cathodic protection and what is the testing history?
  • Will Salem/Hope Creek commit to perform the same number of inspections in the 50 60 year time frame?

ENCLOSURE 4

August 18, 2010 LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 4,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on August 4,2010, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft requests for additional information (D-RAls) concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's D-RAls. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items. Talking points for the meeting from the applicant and the staff are in Enclosure 3 and 4, respectively.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

IRA!

Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-354

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants
2. Summary of meeting discussion
3. Talking points for meeting provided by the applicant
4. Talking pOints for meeting provided by NRC cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next page ADAMS Accesslon N0 ... ML102220476 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPBl :DLR PM:RPBl :DLR IKing BBrady NAME BBrady BPham 08/13/10 08/13/10 08/17/10 08/18/10 DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from B. Brady, dated August 18,2010

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 4,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:

HARDCOPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RdsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource BPham BBrady CEccleston REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC A Burritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102220476&oldid=2129396"