ML12042A087
| ML12042A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML12042A087 (10) | |
Text
1 Davis-BesseNPEm Resource From:
CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Sent:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:47 AM To:
dorts@firstenergycorp.com Cc:
custerc@firstenergycorp.com; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource
Subject:
DB Telephone Conference Summary for your review Attachments:
6 28 2011 v2 DB NRC Telecon Summary.docx Importance:
High
- Steve, Please let me know if you have any comments.
- Regards, Samuel Cuadrado de Jesús Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-415-2946 Samuel.CuadradoDeJesus@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier:
Davis_BesseLicenseRenewal_Saf_NonPublic Email Number:
3408 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D0806FCB9457)
Subject:
DB Telephone Conference Summary for your review Sent Date:
1/17/2012 7:46:55 AM Received Date:
1/17/2012 7:46:56 AM From:
CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Created By:
Samuel.CuadradoDeJesus@nrc.gov Recipients:
"custerc@firstenergycorp.com" <custerc@firstenergycorp.com>
Tracking Status: None "Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource" <Davis-BesseHearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "dorts@firstenergycorp.com" <dorts@firstenergycorp.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 334 1/17/2012 7:46:56 AM 6 28 2011 v2 DB NRC Telecon Summary.docx 36013 Options Priority:
High Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
LICENSEE:
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY:
Davis-Besse
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JUNE 28, 2011 BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE DAVIS-BESSE, 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 June 28, 2011, to discuss and clarify the applicants responses to the staffs requests for additional information (RAIs) 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.
Samuel Cuadrado de Jesús License Renewal Branch, RPB1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Number:50-346
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Participants
- 2. List of Requests for Additional Information cc w/encls: See next page
DOCUMENT NAME: Insert document name and full path.
OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR NAME S Cuadrado de Jesús D Morey DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS JUNE 28, 2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Samuel Cuadrado de Jesús U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Bryce Lehman NRC Abdul Sheikh NRC Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
Steve Dort FENOC Kathy Nesser FENOC Jon Hook FENOC Dick Bair FENOC Tim Ridlon FENOC Don Kosloff FENOC Jake Hofelich FENOC David Chew FENOC
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION JUNE 28, 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 June 28, 2011, to discuss and clarify the following responses to requests for additional information (RAIs) concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application (LRA).
Response to RAI B.2.22-1 Discussion:
The staff requested FENOC to provide the basis for selecting only three locations for nondestructive testing (NDT) for such a large area. The staff finds that one time NDT before the period of extended operation (PEO) will not be sufficient to establish a trend before the PEO.
FENOC did not provided details on what and how it will inspect the annulus area. The staff stated that specific details are needed.
FENOC responded by stating that the basis for the 3 locations is that those are the areas of known leakage. FENOC stated that is not aware of leakage elsewhere. As far as trending, FENOC is confirming the analysis for the Cycle 13 Refueling Outage (RFO) Report rather than establishing a trend.
The staff stated that a follow-up RAI will be sent to FENOC to clarify the information provided.
The staff also stated that FENOC needs to provide a basis for examining only 3 areas, describe the location of the exams (i.e., below current grout elevation, at grout surface, and above grout surface) and provide the basis for a one-time examination (i.e., this exam will verify the conclusions of the 13RFO study.)
Action: The staff will issue a follow-up RAI.
Response to RAI RAI B.2.22-2 Discussion:
The staff stated that FENOC needs to identify firm plans. The staff finds that just stating that FENOC plans to access the inside surface of containment is not acceptable.
The staff requested additional information regarding the examination of the bottom head of the containment vessel. This activity will require removal of concrete in containment to gain access to the inside surface of the containment vessel to inspect for potential boric acid degradation. FENOC stated that there are several potential access locations; however a specific location and schedule has not been developed.
The staff stated that a follow-up RAI will be sent to FENOC so that a more specific schedule with details is submitted by FENOC.
Action: The staff will issue a follow-up RAI.
Response to RAI B.2.22-3 Discussion:
The staff asked the applicant to explain how and when coating is inspected.
FENOC stated that a containment coating inspection is performed using the FENOC Coating Condition Assessment Program and is conducted every refueling outage.
The staff stated that there are no open questions for this RAI.
Response to RAI B.2.22-4 Discussion:
The staff stated that the response is not consistent with GALL recommendations. GALL Report, Program XI.S1 states: Stainless steel penetration sleeves, dissimilar metal welds, bellows, and steel components that are subject to cyclic loading but have no current licensing basis fatigue analysis are monitored for cracking. However, the staff noted that the LRA states that the program is consistent with the GALL Report. RAI B.2.22-4 addresses an issue concerning the GALL Report Revision 2 requirements for inspection of containment vessel penetrations for potential cracks in welds or the evaluation of the penetrations in a fatigue analysis.
FENOC stated that a completed plan is not currently available.
The staff stated that a follow-up RAI will be issued and FENOC is to provide details on whether inspection (potentially a sampling program) or analysis of the penetrations will be performed to satisfy this requirement.
Action: The staff will issue a follow-up RAI.
Response to RAI B.2.39-1 Discussion:
The staff stated that it needs more information on the core bore results and how they concluded there is no concern with the structural integrity. The staff also noted that the applicant should be prepared to discuss the report referenced in the RAI response. The staff also stated that it needs more details in the commitment (Commitment No. 33), specifically what will be done if the applicant cannot stop the leakage or the leakage begins again at a later date (e.g. core bores, more frequent inspections, etc.).
FENOC stated that the 2003 core drills were based on NDE results. The conclusion was that the leak did not adversely affect the structural integrity of the concrete inside containment. The
primary concern was the refueling canal wall in the east/west tunnel area. The results were minor corrosion with a minimal affect on the concrete. The applicant also stated that a contractor conducted a pulse velocity test on the concrete samples and that there were also other exams of the concrete to determine what affect the leakage had.
The staff stated that during the audit, they saw extensive corrosion and the leakage has continued since 2003. FENOC explained that there is surface rust in the area but rust stains are not from the rebar inside. The staff stated that more information is needed as to why the 2003 report is still applicable today. The staff will issue a follow-up RAI and asked FENOC to include details on the location and number of core drills, types of testing to be performed, actions to stop leakage, plans for addressing continued leakage or renewed leakage. The staff also requested the FENOC plans for addressing commodities in the containment east/west tunnel (conduit, pipe supports, etc.) affected by the refueling canal leakage.
Action: The staff will issue a follow-up RAI.
Response to RAI B.2.39-2 Discussion:
The staff noted that to address its concerns the applicant should provide a two-part solution: (1) concrete bores to verify past leakage did not degrade walls and (2) future actions to ensure leakage does not occur again. The staff noted that the applicant addressed part 1; however, they did not adequately address part 2. The staff stated that the applicant should commit to take actions to ensure the leak-chase system remains operable during the PEO (e.g. boroscopic inspections at an technically justifiable interval).
In response to part 2 of the question, FENOC stated that a preventative maintenance task was created to clean leak chase components on a three-year basis. Previously, there had been about 10 years between cleanings. FENOC stated that a 3-year program will be in place. The channel leakage will continue to be monitored monthly and trended. If necessary, a condition report will be generated and an investigation will be conducted. The staff stated that a follow-up RAI will be sent and requested that FENOC consider a commitment for its future actions.
Action: The staff will issue a follow-up RAI.
Other Discussion:
The staff stated that they had brief questions on AMRs 3.5.2.3.12-1 and 3.5.2.3.12-2 but was unsure if FENOC was prepared to discuss these issues. The staff stated that follow-up RAIs may be issued on the following items concerning opportunistic / periodic inspections.
AMR 3.5.2.3.12-1 concerns with the emergency diesel generator fuel oil tank hold down components and how the FENOC response discusses undisturbed natural soil AMR 3.5.2.3.12-2 concerns with galvanized steel corrugated piping buried adjacent to the Intake Structure.
Lastly, the staff stated that it had a question related to Appendix J RAI B.2.1.5.1-1 and
the qualifications of personnel. The staff stated that FENOC references its own procedures and that these procedures are not docketed. The staff noted that FENOC will need to confirm its standards.
An RAI (later determined to be B.2.1-2) has been sent to FENOC addressing this Appendix J issue.
There was no further discussion, and the call was concluded.
SUBJECT:
Summary of Telephone Conference Call conducted on June 28, 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 ICouret, OPA TReilly, OCA BHarris, OGC