ML11327A079

Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held on Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, Concerning Requests for Additional Information Pertaining to the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station

ML11327A079
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/02/2011
From:	Cuadradodejesus S License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
Cuadrado S
References
TAC ME4640
Download: ML11327A079 (8)

Text

~f\ REGUi UNITED STATES

~.;:,c,'" 'i'>-o.". NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

<{

~

0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Iii:

~

'<; ~

~

December 2, 2011

"} ~o

• • • • 1<

LICENSEE: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC. NO. ME4640)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the applicant) held a telephone conference call on September 13, 2011, to discuss and clarify the applicant's responses to the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, license renewal application.

Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a description of the staff's concerns discussed with the applicant. A brief description on the status of the items is also included.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Ivision of License Re ewa Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Number: 50-346

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Listserv

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Samuel Cuadrado de Jesus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Angela Buford NRC Abdul Sheikh NRC Andrew Prinaris NRC Bryce Lehman NRC Alice Erickson NRC John Klos NRC Michelle Kichline NRC Ganesh Cheruvenki NRC Christopher Sydnor NRC Jeffrey Poehler NRC Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)

Steven Dort FENOC Larry Hinkle FENOC Steve Osting FENOC John Hartigan FENOC Richard Bair FENOC Jake Hofelich FENOC Vincent Capozziello FENOC ENCLOSURE 1

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the applicant) held a telephone conference call on September 13, 2011, to discuss and clarify the following response to requests for additional information (RAls) and new questions concerning the license renewal application (LRA).

8/17/2011 response to RAI B.2.25-7 Discussion: The staff stated that on Attachment 2, page 11, of the response, the applicant stated, "All of the samples had tritium concentrations lower than observed from the July 28, 2004, sampling." The staff asked for the observed tritium levels of July 28,2004.

The applicant stated that the tritium levels for monitoring well 18 were 667 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) and 728 pC ilL. There was no further discussion on this issue.

Action: None 8/26/2011 response to 3.3.2.14-1 Discussion: The staff was concerned that not all applicable aging effects are identified for the fire water storage tank heat exchanger tubes. The applicant stated that the consequences of tube failure do not directly challenge the function of the tank.

Action: The applicant will review the issue to determine whether the fire water storage tank heat exchanger should be removed from scope. The applicant will provide a supplemental response to RAI 3.3.2.14-1.

New question-LRA Table 3.1.2-X RPV flange leak detection line (Nickel alloy) AMR line item may be misSing Discussion: The staff was concerned that a line item for the dissimilar metal weld (DMW) was not readily identifiable. The applicant stated that the nozzle is stainless steel and not nickel-alloy, but that there is a nickel-alloy weld attaching the nozzle to the vessel closure flange. The applicant agreed to provide a separate line item in LRA Table 3.1.2-3 to address aging management of the subject weld.

Action: The applicant will provide a supplemental response to add a separate line item in Table 3.1.2-3 to address aging management of the nickel-alloy weld associated with the flange leakage piping.

ENCLOSURE 2

-2 New guestion-LRA Section 4.7.3 Discussion: The staff indicated that a reference could not be found for the fracture mechanics analysis that evaluated the integrity of the reactor vessel against pressurized thermal shock (PTS) for 52 effective full power years (EFPY) considering the 35°F minimum temperature for the borated water storage tank. The staff also stated that a reference to this analysis was not identified in Section 5.2 of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).

Action: The applicant will verify whether the analysis is docketed and provide the corresponding ADAMS accession number. The applicant will identify the applicable text in Section 5.2 of the USAR. Applicable information will be provided to the NRC Project Manager.

New guestion-LRA Section 4.7.5.1 Discussion: The staff stated that, for the Reactor Coolant System Loop 1 cold leg drain line nozzle weld overlay time-limited aging analysis (TLAA) , a summary could not be located in LRA Appendix A, "Updated Safety Analysis Report Supplement."

Action: If a summary exists, the applicant will provide the applicable section number of LRA Appendix A to the NRC Project Manager. Otherwise, the applicant wil provide a supplemental response to add a summary to LRA Appendix A.

New guestion-LRA Section 4.7.5.2 Discussion: The staff stated that, for the steam generator shell flaw evaluation TLAA, a summary could not be located in Appendix A of the LRA.

Action: If a summary exists, the applicant will provide the applicable section number of LRA Appendix A to the NRC Project Manager. Otherwise, the applicant will provide a supplemental response to add a summary to LRA Appendix A.

8/17/2011 response to RAI 4.6-1 Discussion: The staff asked the applicant to provide the basis for the 400 cycles for the containment vessel. The applicant stated that this was a conservative assumption of expected cycles for 40 years of operation. The staff noted that this basis was not documented in LRA Appendix A. The applicant agreed to add the basis to LRA Appendix A in a supplemental response.

The staff noted that in the original LRA submittal, the pressure range for the fatigue waiver analysis was shown as -25 to 120 pounds per square inch (psi), whereas the range provided in the applicant's response to RAI 4.6-1 was -25 to 20 psi. The applicant indicated that the 120 psi value in the LRA was a typographical error, and that this value would be corrected in a supplemental response.

In RAI 4.6-1, the applicant noted that the pressure cycle range used in the fatigue waiver evaluation is from -25 to 20 psi, for a full range pressure fluctuation of 45 psi.

- 3 However, the possible full range pressure fluctuation is from -0.67 to 45 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) based on the containment vessel design allowable negative pressure of -0.67 psig and the containment vessel pneumatic test pressure of 45 psig (design pressure of 36 psig times 1.25). The applicant further noted that this adjusted full range pressure fluctuation of 45.67 psi is less than the 80 psi value determined in the N-415.1 (b) analysis, and therefore, the condition in N-415.1(b) is met.

The staff requested that the basis for the -0.67 to 45 psig pressure range be included in LRA Appendix A. The applicant agreed to add the basis to LRA Appendix A in a supplemental response.

Action: The applicant will provide a supplemental response to RAI 4.6-1 to include the basis for the 400 cycles and the pressure range of -0.67 to 45 psig in LRA Appendix A. In addition, the applicant will provide clarification in the supplemental response to indicate that the pressure range of -20 to 120 psi provided in the original LRA submittal was a typographical error.

New guestion-LRA Section 4.6.3 Discussion: The staff noted that Section 4.6.3 states that the permanent canal seal plate (PCSP) was installed in 2004, whereas LRA Table 4.3-1 (transient 31A) indicates the PCSP was installed in 2003. The applicant stated that, although the PCSP was physically installed in 2003, the transient cycle accrual for the PCSP did not start until the year 2004 (restart after the reactor head replacement), and that the cycle projections are based on the 2004 date. The applicant also confirmed that in their ASME Section III Fatigue analysis for the permanent canal seal plate (also called the reactor cavity seal plate) the CUF was calculated to be equal to 1.0 when assuming 50 heatup/cooldown cycles and 50 operating basic earthquake cycles. The staff accepted the applicant's answer with no further discussion.

Action: None 8/26/2011 response to RAI 8.2.22-6 Discussion: The staff noted that in the RAI response, the applicant stated in license renewal future Commitment 39 that core bores to access the inside surface of the embedded containment vessel would be performed in 2014 and, if required, in 2020. The staff wanted to know if the 2014 core bore could occur sooner. The applicant stated that outage plans are developed two years in advance, and that it would be challenging to perform the core bore sooner. However, the applicant agreed to consider a revised schedule for the core bore.

Action: The applicant will consider a revised schedule for the 2014 core bore and provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager.

8/17/2011 response to RAI 8.2.22-7 Discussion: The staff noted that, in the RAI response, the applicant provided a commitment to enhance the Inservice Inspection (lSI) - IWE Program to perform examinations prior to the period of extended operation to monitor for cracking of stainless steel containment penetration

-4 sleeves, dissimilar metal welds, bellows, and steel components that are subject to cyclic loading, but have no current licensing basis fatigue analysis.

The staff noted that the frequency was not specified, and asked for discussion of the inspection frequency. The applicant stated that the inspection frequency is planned to occur once each 10-year lSI interval; the inspections would be lSI augmented inspections. The applicant also stated that the representative sample size is planned to be 10 percent of the scope. The applicant mentioned that the general condition of the penetration is noted during Appendix J testing. The applicant further stated that penetration fatigue analyses may be developed in lieu of inspections.

The staff suggested that an LRA change/commitment be considered to document the frequency, sample size, basis for sample size, and to emphasize the use of Appendix J testing.

The staff also stated that the applicant should consider clarifying that fatigue analyses, if performed later for these penetration components, would then remove the requirement to perform examinations for cracking.

Action: The applicant will provide additional information related to containment penetration component cracking examination frequency, sample size, basis for sample size, and to emphasize the use of Appendix J testing. In addition, clarify that development of penetration fatigue analyses would remove the requirement to perform examinations for cracking. The applicant will provide a supplemental response to RAI B.2.22-7.

8/26/2011 response to RAI B.2.39-11 Discussion: RAI B.2.39-11 addressed groundwater effects to concrete and provided a commitment to obtain and evaluate for degradation a concrete core bore from two representative inaccessible concrete components of an in-scope structure subjected to aggressive groundwater prior to entering the period of extended operation (April 22, 2017). The staff deemed the information in the response acceptable, except that implementation by April 2017 is not acceptable. The staff questioned whether the evaluation of core bores could occur and be dispositioned as early as 2014. The applicant agreed to consider a revised schedule and provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager.

Action: The applicant will consider changing the commitment implementation date and will provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager. If the commitment implementation date is changed, the applicant will provide a supplemental response.

... ML11327A079 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR SCuadrado de SCuadrado de NAME SFigueroa DMorey Jesus Jesus TE 11/29/11 11/29/11 12/2111 12/2/11 Memorandum to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company from S. Cuadrado de Jesus dated December 2,2011

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC. NO. ME4640)

DISTRIBUTION:

E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource SCuadrado PCooper EMiller MMahoney ICouret,OPA TReiIlY,OCA BHarris, OGC VMitlyng, RII JCameron, Rill