ML13051A068

January 16, 2013 Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Between U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company

ML13051A068
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/26/2013
From:	Cuadradodejesus S License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:
Cuadrado, S 415-2946
References
TAC ME4640
Download: ML13051A068 (6)

Text

"v\.~p..~ REGU,_/o~

"'~

"'f)o.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/!! C'l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 c( 0 In  :

~;;;

~ §'

March 26, 2013

~') ",0 LICENSEE: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JANUARY 16, 2013, 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 January 16, 2013, to discuss and clarify the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Davis-Besse license renewal application.

Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the partiCipants and Enclosure 2 contains a summary of the staff discussion with FENOC. A brief description on the status of the items is also included.

FENOC had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Sincerely, mue 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

March 26, 2013 LICENSEE: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JANUARY 16, 2013, BETWEENTHE 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 January 16, 2013, to discuss and clarify 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 summary of the staff discussion with FENOC. A brief description on the status of the items is also included.

FENOC had an opportunity to comment on this summary Sincerely, IRA!

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. :ML13051A068 OFFICE LA:DLR/RPB1 PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME Y Edmonds SCuadrado de Jesus I DMorey SCuadrado de Jesus DATE 02/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013 03/26/2013 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS January 16, 2013 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Samuel Cuadrado de Jesus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Michael Marshall NRC Bryce Lehman NRC Abdul Sheikh NRC Cliff Custer FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)

Steven Dort FENOC Jon Hook FENOC Thomas Henry FENOC Don Kosloff FENOC ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL DAVIS~BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION January 16, 2013 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 January 16, 2013, to discuss and clarify the following requests for additional information (RAls)

[ADAMS Accession No. ML12355A184] concerning the Davis~Besse license renewal application (LRA).

RAI B.2.43-2a (issued by letter dated January 4.2013)

Discussion: This RAI requests information on FENOC's technical basis for the adequacy of the shield building core bore inspection sample size. The staff clarified that the intent of the RAI was to gain additional information about the already completed testing regarding rebar bond strength, and how the test results provide assurance that, even with the laminar cracking, the Shield Building is structurally acceptable. FENOC informed the staff that the sample size was not based on completed testing regarding rebar bond strength. The staff acknowledged that its linkage of the completed testing to the technical basis of the sample size was mistaken. The staff stated that a copy of the test reports is not needed; a summary of the results would be sufficient.

FENOC understood the staff's clarification and stated that its response would address the shield building rebar-concrete bond strength, the assumptions made in the structural operability calculations regarding bond strength, and how the testing performed to date supports those assumptions.

Action: As part of its RAI response, FENOC may reference this summary which documents the staff's clarification of the RAI during the telephone conference call.

RAI B.2.43-3a (issued by letter dated January 4,2013)

Discussion: This RAI questions why other structures within the scope of license renewal were not included within the scope of the Shield Building AMP and whether structural coatings for the other structures are included in the scope of license renewal.

In response to the staff's question on the consideration of uncoated structures within the scope of the plant-specific shield building AMP, FENOC stated that several other site structures are uncoated or have portions that are uncoated. However, the uncoated Shield Building 'barrel' did not experience initiation of laminar cracking; laminar cracking identified in the 'barrel' of the structure initiated in adjacent shoulders and propagated. FENOC believes this provides a reasonable representation of what would occur in other uncoated structures so there is no need to perform core bores in the other structures. FENOC also stated that the coatings on the other structures are not credited for license renewal aging management. FENOC further stated that the Auxiliary Building and resulting core bore locations were chosen based on similarities of ENCLOSURE 2

reinforcing bar density, wall thickness, and a southwest location (the direction from which the blizzard approached in 1978). FENOC stated that these core bores demonstrated cracking did not occur in a building without the flute shoulder configuration and were adequate to justify the scope of the Shield Building AMP. During the call, FENOC indicated that sufficient information was already on the docket concerning the structures that were included in the scope of the shield building AMP.

The staff stated that they would look at the information available on the docket and would reconsider whether this RAI should have been issued. The staff stated they would contact FENOC in the next several days regarding the status of the RAI. There was no further discussion, and the call was concluded.

Action: The staff will hold another telephone conference call with the applicant to provide additional clarification on RAI B.2.43-3a and its status. This follow-up call was held on January 23, 2013, and the call is documented in a separate summary (ML13042A042).

ENCLOSURE 2

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 16,2013.

DISTRIBUTION:

HARDCOPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource SCuadrado EKeegan EMilier MMahoney DMclntyre, OPA TRileY,OCA BHarris, OGC ENCLOSURE 2