ML12025A047
| ML12025A047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/2012 |
| From: | Cuadradodejesus S License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| CuadradoDeJesus S | |
| References | |
| TAC ME4640 | |
| Download: ML12025A047 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 22, 2012 LICENSEE:
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 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 calion September 7, 2011, to discuss and clarify the applicanfs responses to the staffs requests for additional Information (RAls) concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a description of the staff 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.
Sa el uadr{%:!.,"Zt Manager ojects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DOCKet No. 50-346
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Participants
- 2. List of Requests for Additional Information cc wiencls: Listserv
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS SEPTEMBER 7,2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Samuel Cuadrado de Jesus Seung Min Bo Pham Billy Rogers Michelle Kichline Cliff Custer Steve Dort Kathy Nesser Allen McAllister Don Kosloff Larry Hinkle Jason Stelmaszak Luke Twarek Tom Summers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
NRC NRC NRC NRC FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
FENOC FENOC FENOC FENOC FENOC FENOC FENOC FENOC ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION SEPTEMBER 7, 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 7, 2011, to discuss and clarify the applicants responses to the staffs requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application (LRA),
August 17.2011, Supplemental Response - Abandoned Equipment Discussion:
The staff asked the applicant about its plans to determine the status of the Davis-Besse abandoned equipment particularly their implementation of Commitment No. 26.
The applicant provided details of the action plan for the abandoned in place equipment, which will be conducted in the following three phases:
- 1.
Determine the scope of abandoned equipment-includes review of the drawings, plant walkdowns, and reviewing the clearance database. The applicant stated that it plans to complete this action by November 15, 2011.
- 2.
Determine the status of abandoned equipment-includes reviewing system status files and the eSOMS database, walkdowns to validate valve position status, and ultrasonic testing to confirm the abandoned piping is drained. The applicant stated that it plans to complete this action by January 3, 2012.
- 3.
Place abandoned equipment in a configuration that will not impact safety-related equipment
- create Operations Evolution Orders to isolate and drain systems with fluids, and create Document Change Requests to correct the configuration of the plant. The applicant stated that it plans to complete this action by February 15, 2012.
The staff stated that the applicanfs plan was acceptable and requested that the above plan be submitted as part of its next RAI response letter. The applicant agreed to submit the above plan as part of the next RAI response letter to the staff, and that existing license renewal future Commitment No. 26 will be deleted since the timeline for resolution is prior to receipt of the renewed license. The staff stated that this issue will be treated as an Open Item in the Safety Evaluation Report.
ENCLOSURE 2
- 2 ACTION: The applicant to submit its action plan in its next RAI response letter.
August 17.2011 Supplemental Response - Steam Generator (SG) Aging Management Review (AMR) Tube-To-Tubesheet Weld Discussion:
The next discussion concerned the Davis-Besse SG tube-to-tubesheet welds. Prior to the call the staff provided to the applicant the following draft RAI:
SG tube-to-tubesheet-welds Draft RAI 3.1.2.2.16-1
Background
By letter dated August 17, 2011, the applicant addressed its review results on cracking due to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) of SG nickel alloy tube-to tubesheet welds in response to the discussion held in a telephone conference call dated July 13, 2011.
In the letter, the applicant stated that upon further review after the conference call with the NRC, it determined that the tube-to-tubesheet welds (Alloy 600 welds) for its SGs do not have a license renewal intended function and therefore, are not subject to an AMR The applicant also stated that the SGs are Babcock & Wilcox Model 177 -F A. once through design and the tubes and the tubesheets of the SGs form the pressure boundary between the fluid in the secondary system and the reactor coolant system.
The applicant further stated that as provided in updated safety analysis report (USAR)
Section 5.5.2.3, the tubes are expanded (to a partial depth) into the tubesheet and the tubes are seal welded to the tubesheet near the tube ends and that the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section XI, Division 1, 1995 Edition with 1996 Addenda, IWA-9000 defines a seal weld as a nonstructural weld intended to prevent leakage, where the strength is provided by a separate means. In addition, the applicant stated that the "separate means" in this case being the tube-to-tubesheet expansion joint which forms the pressure boundary and that the tube-to-tubesheet welds are seal welds and therefore, are not part of the pressure boundary.
The applicant stated the tube-to-tubesheet welds (Alloy 600 welds) for its SGs do not have a license renewal intended function and therefore, are not subject to an AMR However, the staff found a need to further confirm that the original design analysis of the applicant's once-through SGs concluded that the interference fit between the tube and the tubesheets was sufficient to ensure the structural and leak-tight integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joints, without a need for crediting the tube-to-tubesheet welds.
- 3 Request
- 1. Confirm that the original design analysis of the applicant's once-through SGs did not credit the tube-to-tubesheet welds for ensuring the structural and leak-tight integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joints. In other words, confirm that the original design analysis of the once-through SGs demonstrated that the interference fit between the tube and the tubesheets were capable of withstanding all design loads (with the appropriate margins) and for ensuring the leak-tight integrity of the joints.
- 2. If the original design analysis did not conclude that the interference fit between the tube and the tubesheets was sufficient to ensure the structural and leak-tight integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joints, describe how cracking due to PWSCC will be managed in the SG tube-to-tubesheet welds.
The staff confirmed that the original design analysis of the applicant's once-through SGs concluded that the interference fit between the tube and the tubesheets was sufficient to ensure the structural and leak-tight integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet joints, without a need for crediting the tube-to-tubesheet welds. After some discussion, the applicant stated that the RAI was understood and asked that the staff issue the final RAI.
ACTION: The staff will issue a final version of RAI 3.1.2.2.16-1.
LRA Table 3.3.2-14 items missing (August 26,2011, Response letter)
Discussion:
The staff noted that on page 4 of 36 of the enclosure, the applicant stated that all of LRA Table 3.3.2-14 was replaced with the table in the enclosure. However, the original Table 3.3.2-14 had 2 sections, the first part was for the fire protection system (rows 1-153) and the second part was for the fire pump diesel engine (rows 154-224). The staff noted that the replacement table in the August 26, 2011, response letter only had 174 items. The staff performed a line by line comparison, and it appears that all the items for the original fire pump diesel engine section are missing. The staff stated that there was no text in the RAI response discussing why the items would have been deleted.
The applicant stated that the revised table was intended to replace only the fire protection system rows, and that the rows for the fire pump diesel engine section of Table 3.3.2-14 were not intentionally deleted or replaced. The applicant agreed that Table 3.3.2-14 requires revision to include the missing fire pump diesel engine rows and stated that a supplemental response would be included in the next RAI submittal to the NRC. The staff agreed to this action.
ACTION: The applicant will submit a revised Table 3.3.2-14 as a supplemental response in the next RAI response letter to the staff.
-4 One Time Inspection EVT-1 (August 26,2011, Response letter)
The final discussion concerned the supplemental response for the One-Time Inspection enhanced visual inspection (EVT -1) for cracking of the makeup and purification pump casing submitted in the applicant's response letter dated August 26, 2011. The staff stated that EVT-1 (enhanced visual examination) should have been used rather than VT-1 in the applicant's response.
The applicant agreed and stated that a supplemental response would be included in the next RAI submittal to the staff. The staff agreed to this action ACTION: The applicant will provide a supplemental response in the next RAI submittal to the staff.
LICENSEE:
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7,2011 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 7, 2011, to discuss and clarify the applicant's responses to the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a description of the staff 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.
IRAJ Samuel Cuadrado de Jesus, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No: 50-346
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Participants
- 2. List of Requests for Additional Information cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION: See next page ADAMS Accession No. ML12025A047 OFFICE LARPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR NAME Y Edmonds S Cuadrado de Jesus D Morey DATE 02/15/12 02/15/12 02/22/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy
Memorandum to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company from Samuel Cuardrado de Jesus dated February 22,2012.
SUBJECT:
Summary of Telephone Conference Call conducted on September 7,2011 DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC [or NON-PUBLIC, if applicable]
RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource PCooper BHarris SCuadrado EMiller MMahoney TRiley,OCA BHarris, OGC