ML102450755

08/31/2010-Summary of Telephone Conference Call Between NRC and Pacific Gas & Electric Company Concerning Responses to Request for Additional Information Related to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, License Renewal Application

ML102450755
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/29/2010
From:	Ferrer N License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:
Ferrer, N B, NRR/DLR, 415-1045
References
Download: ML102450755 (7)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 29, 2010 LICENSEE: Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 31, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the applicant) held a telephone conference call on August 31, 2010, to obtain clarification on the applicant's response to request for additional information (RAI) regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant license renewal application.

By letters dated June 18, 2010, and August 17, 2010, PG&E sent the staff a response to RAI letters dated May 24, 2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively. the staff reviewed the information contained therein, and requested a telephone conference call. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the PG&E's response. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants. Enclosure 2 provides discussions on the RAI responses for which the staff requested clarification. PG&E will submit supplemental responses, as necessary, within 30 days of the issuance of this summary. Follow*up RAls, determined to be necessary, will be issued separately by a formal letter.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Nathaniel Ferrer, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of NuclearReactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50*275 and 50*323

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AUGUST 31, 2010 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Nate Ferrer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Garry Armstrong NRC Stan Gardocki NRC Greg Casto NRC Philippe Soenen Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)

Kyle Duke PG&E Kevin Braico PG&E Chalmer Myer Strategic Teaming And Resource Sharing (STARS)

David Kunsemiller STARS Rye Davis STARS Dan Shepard STARS Ken Bryant STARS James Copernicus STARS Randall Boyd STARS ENCLOSURE 1

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application Request for Additional Information (Sets 2 and 13)

Scoping and Screening RAI2.1-1 and 2.1-2 In its June 18, and July 28,2010, responses to requests for additional information (RAls) 2.1-1and 2.1-2, the applicant added several components to the scope of license renewal under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). However, the staff was unclear why some fluid-filled, non safety-related components, in the turbine building were excluded from the scope of license renewal given that they were in the same space as safety-related components.

Discussion:

The staff will issue follow-up RAls to clarify why certain components were excluded from the scope of license renewal.

RAI 2.3.3.5-1 In its August 17, 2010, response to RAI 2.3.3.5-1, the applicant added additional components to the scope of license renewal for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) related to the firewater tank. However, the staff was unclear why the firewater tank was not revised to be in scope under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1).

Discussion:

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) agreed to supplement its response to RAI 2.3.3.5-1 to clarify whether the firewater tank is in scope for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1), and provide an evaluation of piping attached to the tank to ensure appropriate endpoints are established in accordance with the applicant's stated methodology.

RAI 2.3.3.5-4 In its August 17, 2010, response to RAI 2.3.3.5-4, the applicant provided an explanation for their selection of endpoints for various license renewal boundaries. However, the staff was unclear how the seismic anchors for non safety-related connections to the condensate storage tank, firewater storage tank, and primary storage tank were established.

Discussion:

PG&E agreed to supplement its response to RAI2.3.3.5-4 to clarify how appropriate endpoints were established based upon criteria in the applicant's stated methodology.

ENCLOSURE 2

-2 RAI 2.3.3.5-5 In its August 17, 2010, response to RAI 2.3.3.5-5, the applicant provided information on the procedural mitigation methods related to the makeup to the component cooling water surge tank. However, the response was not clear with respect to whether the makeup to the spent fuel pool is addressed with a similar method.

Discussion:

PG&E agreed to supplement its response to RAI 2.3.3.5-5 to clarify the procedural mitigation methods related to the makeup to the spent fuel pool.

RAI 2.3.3.6-1 In its August 17, 2010, response to RAI2.3.3.6-1 the applicant indicated that the heat exchangers of concern were revised to be within scope of license renewal under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). However, the staff was unclear on the basis for why the heat exchangers were no longer designated as safety-related components which would require them to be in the scope of license renewal under 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1).

Discussion:

PG&E agreed to supplement its response to RAI 2.3.3.6-1 to clarify why the heat exchangers were no longer deSignated as safety-related components.

RAI2.3.3.7-1 In its August 17, 2010, response to RAI 2.3.3.7-1, the applicant provided details for why solenoid valves and the tubing between both sets of solenoid valves were excluded from scope of license renewal. However the staff made the following observations:

1. The staff was unclear why both valves 1-PCV-19 and 1-PCV-20 were discussed in the description.

Discussion:

The applicant indicated that the reference to 1-PCV-19, in the response, should have been 1-PCV-20. Based on the discussion, this portion of the response is clear.

-3

2. The staff was unclear how appropriate endpoints were established on the non safety related piping connecting to safety-related solenoid valves. The existing license renewal boundary did not include the non safety-related piping past the safety-related/non safety related interface to a seismic anchor in accordance with the applicant's stated methodology.

Discussion:

PG&E agreed to supplement its response to RAI 2.3.3.7-1 to clarify how the seismic endpoints were established.

September 29, 2010 LICENSEE: Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 31, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the applicant) held a telephone conference call on August 31, 2010, to obtain clarification on the applicant's response to request for additional information (RAI) regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant license renewal application.

By letters dated June 18, 2010, and August 17, 2010, PG&E sent the staff a response to RAI letters dated May 24, 2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively. The staff reviewed the information contained therein, and requested a telephone conference call. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the PG&E's response. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants. Enclosure 2 provides discussions on the RAI responses for which the staff requested clarification. PG&E will submit supplemental responses, as necessary, within 30 days of the issuance of this summary. Follow-up RAls, determined to be necessary, will be issued separately by a formal letter.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

IRA!

Nathaniel Ferrer, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next page ADAMS Accession No'.. ML102450755 OFFICE LADLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME YEdmonds NFerrer w/edits DWrona NFerrer DATE 9/15/10 9/16/10 9/29/10 9/29/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

Memorandum To PG&E Company from N. Ferrer dated September 29, 2010

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 31, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC [or NON-PUBLIC, if appropriate]

RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource RidsOgcMailRoom Resource N. Ferrer K. Green A. Stuyvenberg D. Wrona A. Wang M. Peck, RIV T. Brown, RI G. Miller, RIV N. O'Keefe, RIV I. Couret, OPA V. Dricks, OPA W. Maier, RIV J. Weil, OCA Williamson, OGC S. Uttal, OGC R. Rihm, EDO