ML103430623

Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Between NRC and PG&E Concerning Request for Additional Information Related Tot the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, LRA (TAC Nos. ME2896 & ME2897)

ML103430623
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/11/2011
From:	Ferrer N License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:
Ferrer, N B, NRR/DLR, 415-1045
References
TAC ME2896, TAC ME2897
Download: ML103430623 (6)

Text

t,,,,11 REGU(

UNITED STATES

,,~'§'\\-

"'o~"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

(>

0 t;,:

~

~

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 11, 2011

~

~

1-1]

~o

• • • • -\\(

LICENSEE:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY:

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. ME2896 AND ME2897)

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 November 18,2010, to obtain clarification on PG&E's response to the staff's requests for additional information (RAI) regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant license renewal application.

By letter dated September 30, 2010, PG&E sent a response to the staff's RAls regarding aging management programs. The staff reviewed the information contained therein, and bye-mail dated November 10,2010, sent a draft RAJ related to the applicant's response. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of PG&E's response, as well as the staff's concerns described in the draft RAJ. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants. provides discussions on RA! responses for which the staff requested clarification as well as draft RAls for which the applicant requested clarification. PG&E will submit supplemental responses, as necessary, within 30 days of the issuance of this summary.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

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

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Kim Green U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Bryce Lehman NRC Abdul Sheikh NRC Terry Grebel Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)

Kyle Duke PG&E David Wong PG&E Fred Polaski PG&E ENCLOSURE 1

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application Request for Additional Information Aging Management Programs D-RAI 82.1.32-1 (follow-up)

Background:

By letter dated September 30, 2010, the applicant responded to follow-up RAI B2.1.32-1 regarding the Structures Monitoring Program acceptance criteria. In the response, the applicant stated that prior to the period of extended operation, the acceptance criteria for concrete structural elements for safety-related structures will be revised to incorporate the quantitative evaluation criteria provided in ACI 349.3R.

Issue:

The qualitative acceptance criteria should apply to all concrete elements within the scope of the Structures Monitoring Program; however, the applicant's response only addresses safety-related structures. In addition, the response makes no mention of conducting a baseline inspection with qualitative acceptance criteria. In order to properly monitor and trend structural degradation during the period of extended operation, a baseline inspection in accordance with ACI 349.3R acceptance criteria, must be completed prior to the period of extended operation.

Reguest:

1} Update the acceptance criteria for all in-scope concrete elements or justify why it is not needed.

2) Provide plans and a schedule to conduct a baseline inspection in accordance with the ACI 349.3R acceptance criteria prior to the period of extended operation, or justify why a baseline inspection is not needed.

Discussion:

The staff clarified its concerns that applicant will only update the acceptance criteria for safety-related elements and not all elements within the scope of license renewal. Additionally, the staff clarified that its concern, as described in the "issue" section above, relates to the quantitative acceptance criteria. The applicant was clear on the staff's concerns, as clarified, and agreed to supplement its response to RAI B2.1.32-1 to address the staff's concerns described in the D-RAI.

RAI 82.1.28-1 (follow-up)

In its supplemental response to RAI B2.1.28-1 (follow-up) dated September 30,2010, the applicant provided justification for an allowable crack size of larger than 0,015 inches.

Discussion:

The staff was not clear on the applicant's proportionality explanation as justification for using a crack size allowance larger than 0.015 inches. The applicant agreed to supplement its response to RAI B2.1.28-1 to address the staffs concerns described in the D-RAI.

ENCLOSURE

- 2 D-RAI 82.1.32-2 (follow-up)

Background:

By letter dated September 30, 2010, the applicant responded to RAI B2.1.32-2 regarding the Structures Monitoring Program inspection interval. In the response the applicant stated that the interval will be aligned with guidance in ACI 349.3R, except for the exterior of non-safety related structures, for which the interval will be no more than 10 years.

Issue:

The RAI response did not provide a technical justification for an inspection interval greater than five years for the exterior of non-safety related structures.

Request:

Provide technical justification for the longer inspection interval for the exterior of nonsafety related structures. An adequate justification should address environmental factors as well as relevant operating experience for het structures in question.

Discussion:

During the cali, the staff notified the applicant that it would be sending the above D-RAI. The staff clarified its concerns described in the D-RAI to the applicant. The applicant agreed to supplement its response to RAI B2.1.32-2 to address the staff's concerns described in the D-RAI.

January 11, 2011 LICENSEE:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY:

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. ME2896 AND ME2897)

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 November 18, 2010, to obtain clarification on PG&E's response to the staff's requests for additional information (RAI) regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant license renewal application.

By letter dated September 30, 2010, PG&E sent a response to the staff's RAls regarding aging management programs. The staff reviewed the information contained therein, and bye-mail dated November 10,2010, sent a draft RAI related to the applicant's response. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of PG&E's response, as well as the staff's concerns described in the draft RAI. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants. provides discussions on RAI responses for which the staff requested clarification as well as draft RAls for which the applicant requested clarification. PG&E will submit supplemental responses, as necessary, within 30 days of the issuance of this summary.

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. ML103430623 OFFICE LADLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing NFerrer DWrona NFerrer DATE 12/13/10 115/11 1/7/11 1/11/11 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

Memorandum to Pacific Gas and Electric Company from N. Ferrer dated January 11, 2010

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. ME2896 AND ME2897)

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLRRF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC [or NON-PUBLIC, if appropriate]

RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource NFerrer KGreen AStuyvenberg DWrona AWang MPeck, RIV TBrown, RI GMiller, RIV NO'Keefe, RIV I Couret, OPA VDricks,OPA WMaier, RIV JWeil,OCA EWiliiamson, OGC SUttal,OGC RRihm, EDO