ML110070030

Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held on August 30, 2010, Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Concerning Questions Pertaining to the Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application

ML110070030
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/25/2011
From:	Bennett Brady License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	Public Service Enterprise Group
Brady, Bennett M. NRR/DLR, 415-2981
References
Download: ML110070030 (6)

Text

\-~",fI REG U UNITED STATES

/'~p

...

<C

!-

- . ~..O~.L "0

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

<J> li:'

~ ~

'"

~-;> ~

'i'0' March 25, 2011

• • • • i<

LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Hope Creek Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 30, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS 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 30, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's questions on responses to requests for additional information concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions.

Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items.

The applicant has 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 No. 50-354

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AUGUST 30, 2010 PARTICIPANTS: AFFI LlATIONS:

Bennett Brady U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Allen Hiser NRC Jim Meddoff NRC On Vee NRC Ching Ng NRC Arthur Cunanon NRC John Hufnagel Exelon Exelon Don Warfel Exelon AI Fulvio Exelon Tom Quintenz PSEG Nuclear Sam Speer Jim Stavely PSEG Nuclear Randy Schmidt PSEG Nuclear ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON QUESTIONS ON THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AUGUST 30, 2010 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC held a telephone conference call on August 30, 2010, to discuss and clarify the questions concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station license renewal application (LRA) concerning the applicant's response to requests for information (RAls) on time limiting aging analyses for metal fatigue.

DISCUSSION:

NRC STAFF QUESTION:

In the response to RAI4.3-01 (Part 1) in PSEG's letter of July 22,1010, on the Hope Creek's fatigue analysis of reactor pressure vessel components, there was a reference to stress-based fatigue (SBF) methodology and use of Green's function. The staff is not sure what was' performed for the "confirmatory evaluation" and the LRA does not provide enough information regarding this evaluation for the staff to make a conclusion whether or not Hope Creek's use of FatiguePro for SBF monitoring is acceptable. For example, what were the assumptions for this evaluation? Did both the confirmatory evaluation and the FatiguePro use the same parameters/assumptions?

PSEG RESPONSE:

PART 1:

PSEG provided the following response. The additional information is shown in bold and italics.

CONFIRMATION OF SEPARATE TRANSIENT USE:

(i) In the fatigue analyses for the FW nozzles, the turbine trip with 100% steam bypass and the partial FW heater bypass were accounted for as two separate transients.

(ii) These transients are included in the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary aging management program (Hope Creek LRA Appendix B, Section B.3.1.1) and are counted as two separate transients per the current design basis. As stated in the LRA Section 4.3.1, page 4-24, the number of design basis cycles does not represent a design limit. The fatigue usage for a component is normally the result of several different thermal and pressure transients. Exceeding the number of cycles for one transient does not necessarily imply the fatigue usage will exceed an acceptance limit. As such, the two transients will not have limits set for them, since the calculated fatigue usage factor will be the limiting value monitored by the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary aging management program.

In the case of the FW nozzles, fatigue usage is not calculated directly as a result of specific transient cycles using cycle-based fatigue (CBF). As part of the enhanced program (Enhancement No.2), FW nozzle fatigue monitoring will be performed using fatigue monitoring software, incorporating a stress-based fatigue (SBF) approach.

ENCLOSURE 2

-2 As described in LRA Section 4.3.1, page 4-24, SBF consists of computing a "real time" stress history for a given component from actual temperature, pressure, and flow histories. The cumulative usage factor (CUF) is then computed from the stress history using appropriate cycle counting techniques and fatigue analysis methodology. A confirmatory evaluation has been performed to verify the conservatism of the Green's Function and associated SBF methodology.

The "confirmatory evaluation" consisted of a benchmark analysis for all SBF locations (feedwater nozzle safe end and nozzle forging) monitored by the HCGS FatiguePro software to demonstrate that the cumulative usage factor (CUF) calculated by FatiguePro is conservative compared to the CUF calculated in the governing design basis, ASME Code, Section 11/, NB-3200 fatigue calculation. For each SBF location monitored, the most severe load pair combination expected to occur was evaluated in FatiguePro, and the fatigue results compared to the results from the governing design basis fatigue calculation. The assumption is that performing a comparison of the most severe load pair combination provides a thorough and bounding test of the software, since the highest incremental fatigue usage results were demonstrated to be bounded.

The key parameters used for comparison in the confirmatory calculation were CUF and stress range. The key input parameters that generate fatigue and stress in the feedwater nozzle, pressure and temperature, are the same between the confirmatory calculation and the ASME Code Section 11/, NB-3200 design basis fatigue calculation as they were based on the same design input. The results indicate that the HCGS FatiguePro software computes conservative CUFs compared to the governing fatigue calculations for each location. Therefore, the FatiguePro software provides conservative predictions of CUF compared to ASME Code, Section /II, NB-3200 fatigue calculation methodology, and is acceptable for continued use in fatigue monitoring for the Hope Creek SBF monitored locations through the period of extended operation.

Summary The NRC staff did not feel that the additional information met their needs to understand and accept the methodology. It was agreed that NRC would re-draft their questions concerning this issue, provide them to the applicant, and continue discussion at a later date.

March 25, 2011 LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Hope Creek Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 30, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS 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 30,2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's questions on responses to requests for additional information concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items.

The applicant has 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 No. 50-354

Enclosures:

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

See next page ADAMS Accession Number: ML110070030 FFICE LA: DLR PM: DLR/RPB1 BC: DLRlRPB1 NAME I SFigueroa BBrady BPham I .., ...., guy DATE i 01/10/2011 03/16/2011 03/22/2011 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from Bennett M. Brady, dated March 25, 2011

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 30, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING A. DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLRRF E-MAIL:

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