ML12068A008
| ML12068A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/29/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML12068A008 (10) | |
Text
Davis-BesseNPEm Resource From: CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:46 PM To: dorts@firstenergycorp.com; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource
Subject:
Teleconference summary for FENOC's review Attachments: 7 12 2011 DB NRC Telecon Summary.docx
- 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 1
Hearing Identifier: Davis_BesseLicenseRenewal_Saf_NonPublic Email Number: 3587 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D08072233ED3)
Subject:
Teleconference summary for FENOC's review Sent Date: 2/29/2012 6:45:48 PM Received Date: 2/29/2012 6:45:16 PM From: CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Created By: Samuel.CuadradoDeJesus@nrc.gov Recipients:
"dorts@firstenergycorp.com" <dorts@firstenergycorp.com>
Tracking Status: None "Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource" <Davis-BesseHearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 367 2/29/2012 6:45:16 PM 7 12 2011 DB NRC Telecon Summary.docx 36223 Options Priority: Standard 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 JULY 12, 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 July 12, 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, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 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 D Morey Jesús DATE / / / / / /
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS July 12, 2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Samuel Cuadrado de Jesús U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
On Yee NRC John Klos NRC Christopher Hunt NRC Aloysius Obodoako NRC Ching Ng NRC Ata Istar NRC Matthew Homiack NRC Bo Pham NRC Bryce Lehman NRC Andrew Prinaris NRC Rajender Auluck NRC Abdul Sheikh NRC Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
Steve Dort FENOC Allen McAllister FENOC Larry Hinkle FENOC Kathy Nesser FENOC Don Kosloff FENOC Kevin Zellers FENOC Matt Murtha FENOC Joe Brunkhorst FENOC David Chew FENOC Steve Osting FENOC ENCLOSURE 1
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION July 12, 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 July 12, 2011, to discuss and clarify the following response to requests for additional information (RAIs) and new RAIs concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application (LRA).
Response to RAI B.1.4-1 (Operating Experience)
Discussion:
A discussion was held between the applicant and the staff concerning RAI B1.4-1. The staff stated that the amendment to the LRA should be incorporated in Appendix A (USAR Supplement) of the LRA.
Action: The applicant to provide a supplemental response to RAI B1.4-1. The USAR supplement will be submitted along with the current RAIs that are due on either August 10, 2011, or August 11, 2011. Final submittal date will be discussed between the staffs project manager and the applicants project manager.
Primary Side Fouling of Steam Generator Tubes Discussion:
The staff stated that during a public meeting on February 18, 2011, industry Steam Generator Task Force representatives indicated that primary side fouling of steam generator (SG) tubes is not an issue in the United States. The staff noted that in the LRA, reduction of heat transfer of the SG tubes in a borated reactor coolant environment is addressed as an aging mechanism.
The staff asked the applicant if there has been any information gained by the industry since the February 18, 2011, meeting that would suggest that primary side loss of heat transfer has become an issue. The staff stated that if there is additional information, it should be provided and if not, the applicant should provide its plans to withdraw the aging management review line item that deals with reduction in heat transfer of nickel alloy tubing and sleeves in a borated reactor coolant environment.
The applicant stated that no new information is available that would suggest that primary side loss of heat transfer has become an issue.
Action: The applicant will provide a supplemental response to withdraw the aging management review line item that deals with reduction in heat transfer of nickel alloy tubing and sleeves in a borated reactor coolant environment. The supplement will be submitted along with the current RAIs that are due on either August 10, 2011 or August 11, 2011. A final submittal date will be discussed between the staffs project manager and the applicants project manager.
ENCLOSURE 2
RAI B.2.9-3 Discussion:
The staff provided clarification to the applicant on the intent of RAI B.2.9-3.
Response to RAI B.2.16-1 Discussion:
The staff asked the applicant when it plans to update the USAR table.
The applicant stated that the USAR would be updated at the next revision cycle according to regulation, which is every two years or six months after the completion of a refueling outage.
The staff accepted this response and no actions are due.
Response to RAI B.2.16-2 Discussion:
The staff noted that Commitment No. 42 states that the applicant will enhance the Fatigue Monitoring Program to:
Evaluate additional plant-specific component locations in the reactor coolant pressure boundary that may be more limiting than those considered in NUREG/CR-6260. This evaluation will include identification of the most limiting fatigue location exposed to reactor coolant for each material type (i.e., CS, LAS, SS, and NBA) and that each bounding material/location will be evaluated for the effects of the reactor coolant environment on fatigue usage. Nickel based alloy items will be evaluated using NUREG/CR-6909. Submit the evaluation to the NRC one year prior to the period of extended operation.
The staff asked the applicant to explain its intent to submit the evaluation to the staff. The applicant stated that the intent of the submittal is to provide the results. The applicant also stated that the intent is not to have a new review and approval process; rather, to simply provide the results as information only.
The staff accepted this response and no actions are due.
Response to RAI B.2.16-3 Discussion:
The staff noted that Commitment No. 9, first bullet states When the number of accrued cycles is within 75 [percent] of the allowable cycle limit for any transient The staff requested clarification regarding what an allowable cycle is. The applicant stated that presently allowable cycle is the design cycle. The applicant also stated that for cases where the environmental assisted fatigue (EAF) evaluations used 60-year projected cycles and upon issuance of the new license, the 60-year projected cycle number will become the allowable cycle number.
ENCLOSURE 2
The staff accepted this response and no actions are due.
Response to RAI 4.3-2 Discussion:
The staff noted that Part 3 of the RAI response states the following:
Transient 22 (now Transient 22 A1), high-pressure injection (HPI) System Test, includes HPI flow through all four HPI nozzles for 10 seconds with reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure of 2200 psig and RCS temperature of 550ºF.
The staff requested the applicant to clarify wether the four HPI nozzles being referenced in the RAI response are the ones on LR Boundary Drawing LR-M033A - FE HP3A, FE HP3B, FE HP3C and FE HP3D. In addition the staff requested the applicant to clarify whether the flow elements that are highlighted in green on the LR Boundary Drawing (Non-Class 1 Mechanical Component) are the same HPI nozzles that are referenced in LRA Section 4.3 and have a CUF value associated with them. The staff also requested the applicant to explain whether the HPI nozzles being referenced in LRA Section 4.3 (with the CUF values) are the nozzle connection to the reactor coolant inlet piping.
The applicant stated that the HPI nozzles are not shown on LR Boundary Drawing LR-M033A and that the nozzles are located where the HPI lines connect to the reactor coolant cold leg piping. The applicant stated that the connection point is shown on LR Boundary Drawing LR-M030.
The staff requested the applicant to confirm that transient 22 A1 is not applicable to Davis-Besse. The applicant stated that the HPI pumps are recirculated back to the borated water storage tank during the HPI System flow test and that no inventory is added to the RCS.
In addition, the applicant confirmed that the HPI nozzles do not experience flow from this test.
The staff accepted this response and no actions are due.
Response to RAI 4.3-10 Discussion:
The staff noted that Transient 25 pressurizer heaters is applicable to pressurizer electric heaters but not the pressurizer or pressurizer heater elements. The staff requested the applicant to clarify how the transient pressurizer heaters does or does not affect the fatigue of pressurizer electric heaters.
The applicant stated that the design cycles from transient 25 are related to the design life of the heater (e.g., design life at full capacity with 5,000 cycles is 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />). The applicant also stated that transient 25 has no contribution to fatigue of the pressurizer heater.
The staff accepted this response and no actions are due.
Response to RAI 4.3-17 ENCLOSURE 2
Discussion:
The staff noted that the RAI response for the Surge Line Piping states that Global Fen is calculated by dividing the U en by the in-air cumulative usage factor (CUF), which is the same as MRP-47 LRA pg 4.3-28 and footnote 2 in table 4.3-2 which states that adjusted CUF is obtained by dividing the Uen by the global Fen . The staff requested the applicant to clarify whether the LRA and Table 4.3-2 need to be revised?
The applicant agreed that footnote 2 of Table 4.3-2 should be revised.
Action: The applicant to provide a supplemental response to correct footnote 2 of Table 4.3-2.
The supplement will be submitted along with the current RAIs that are due on either August 10, 2011, or August 11, 2011. Final submittal date will be discussed between the staff project manager and the applicant project manager.
Response to RAIs B.2.25-2, 3, 4, and 6 In preparation for the call the staff requested the applicant clarifying information on the following:
- Verify that leak trenches on the floor are unlined concrete
- Verify that leakage for PH and Iron will be monitored via the Structures Monitoring Program
- Where does the 5-inch band comes from?
- Boroscope requirements
- UFSAR supplement for the Plant Specific Leak Chase Monitoring Program Discussion:
The applicant stated that it verified that the leak trenches on the floor are unlined concrete. The applicant stated that the 5-inch band comes from a plant operating procedure. The remainder of the discussion was to ensure understanding of the staffs concerns by the applicants applicable design engineering staff along with plant engineers who received clarifying information from the staff.
The staff stated that follow-up RAIs will be sent for RAIs B.2.25-4 and 6.
There was no further discussion, and the call was concluded.
ENCLOSURE 2
SUBJECT:
Summary of Telephone Conference Call conducted on July 12, 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 DMcIntyre, OPA TRiley, OCA BHarris, OGC ENCLOSURE 2