View source for RS-15-256, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Set 11, Dated September 14, 2015 Related to the License Renewal Application

{{Adams
| number = ML15281A319
| issue date = 10/08/2015
| title = Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Set 11, Dated September 14, 2015 Related to the License Renewal Application
| author name = Gallagher M P
| author affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000373, 05000374
| license number = NPF-011, NPF-018
| contact person = 
| case reference number = RS-15-256, TAC MF5346, TAC MF5347
| document type = Letter type:RS, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
| page count = 7
| project = TAC:MF5346, TAC:MF5347
| stage = Response to RAI
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Michael P. Gallagher Exelon Generation Vice President.
License Renewal Exelon Nuclear 200 Exelon Way RS-15-256 Kennett Square. PA 19348 610 765 5958 Office 610 765 5956 Fax www.exeloncorp.com michaelp.gallagher@exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 51 10 CFR 54 October 8, 2015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 

==Subject:==

==References:==

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Set 11, dated September 14, 2015 related to the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application (TAC Nos. MF5347 and MF5346) 1. Letter from Michael P. Gallagher, Exelon Generation Company LLC (Exelon), to NRC Document Control Desk, dated December 9, 2014, "Application for Renewed Operating Licenses" 2. Letter from Jeffrey S. Mitchell, US NRC to Michael P. Gallagher, Exelon, dated September 14, 2015, "Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application 
-Set 11 (TAC Nos. MF5347 and MF5346)" In Reference 1, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) submitted the License Renewal Application (LRA) for the LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2. In Reference 2, the NRC requested additional information to support staff review of the LRA. Enclosure A contains the response to these requests for additional information.
Enclosure B contains updates to sections of the LRA affected by the response.
There are no new or revised regulatory commitments contained in this letter.
October 8, 2015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. John Hufnagel, Licensing Lead, LaSalle License Renewal Project , at 610-765-5829.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ltJ-o1-2o!S-Respectfully, Vice President 
-License Renewal Projects Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

==Enclosures:==

A: Response to Set 11 Requests for Additional Information B: LSCS License Renewal Application Updates cc: Regional Administrator-NRC Region Ill NRC Project Manager (Safety Review), NRR-DLR NRC Project Manager (Environmental Review), NRR-DLR NRC Project Manager, NRR-DORL-LaSalle County Station NRC Senior Resident Inspector, LaSalle County Station Illinois Emergency Management Agency -Division of Nuclear Safety RS-15-256 Enclosure A Page 1 of 2 Enclosure A Response to Set 11 Request for Additional Information  Related to various sections of the LaSalle County Station (LSCS)
License Renewal Application (LRA)
RAI 4.2.7-1a 

RS-15-256 Enclosure A Page 2 of 2 RAI 4.2.7-1a 

==Background:==
By letter dated August 6, 2015, the applicant responded to RAI 4.2.7-1 that requested sufficient information on the parameters used in the reactor vessel reflood thermal shock analysis (LRA Section 4.2.7). In its response, the applicant indicated that the maximum initial flaw depth postulated in the analysis is 5.2 percent of the reactor vessel wall thickness per ASME Code Section XI, Table IWB-3510-1. Issue: License Renewal Application (LRA) Table 4.2.7-2 and associated discussion in LRA Section 4.2.7 describe applied stress intensity factor values (KI-applied) at 52 percent of the reactor vessel wall thickness during the recirculation line break transient. The LRA also compares these KI-applied values with the adjusted fracture toughness values (KIc/1.414) of the LSCS limiting reactor vessel material during the transient. It is not clear to the staff why LRA Table 4.2.7-2 and associated discussion in Section 4.2.7 refer to the location at 52 percent of the reactor wall thickness for the fracture toughness comparison rather than 5.2 percent of the wall thickness that corresponds to the postulated initial flaw depth. In addition, the staff noted that LRA Section 4.2.7 does not provide the KI-applied value and the allowable fracture toughness value (KIc/1.414) that were evaluated in the applicant's analysis for N6 low pressure coolant injection nozzles.
Request: 1. Clarify why LRA Table 4.2.7-2 and associated discussion in Section 4.2.7 assume a flaw depth of 52 percent of the wall thickness which is different from the postulated initial flaw depth per ASME Code Section XI, Table IWB-3510-1. 2. Provide the KI-applied value and the allowable fracture toughness value (KIc/1.414) that were evaluated in the applicant's analysis for N6 low pressure coolant injection nozzles.
Exelon Response: 1. The correct flaw depth is 0.052T, which is 5.2 percent of the wall thickness, T. LRA Table 4.2.7-2 and the discussion in LRA Section 4.2.7 have typographical errors that have been corrected, as shown in Enclosure B. 2. At a flaw depth of 0.052T, K I-applied is approximately 35 ksiinch. This is significantly less than the allowable fracture toughness value (K Ic /1.414) of 141 ksiinch. Therefore, adequate margin against non-ductile fracture has been demonstrated for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 N6 LPCI nozzles. These values are added to LRA Section 4.2.7, as shown in Enclosure B. 

RS-15-256 Enclosure B Page 1 of 3 Enclosure B LSCS License Renewal Application Updates Resulting from the Response to the following RAI:
RAI 4.2.7-1a Note:  To facilitate understanding, portions of the LRA have been repeated in this Enclosure, with revisions indicated. Previously submitted information is shown in normal font. Changes are highlighted with bolded italics for inserted text and strikethroughs for deleted text. 

RS-15-256 Enclosure B Page 2 of 3 

As a result of the response to RAI 4.2.7-1a provided in Enclosure A of this letter, the Recirculation Line Break Analysis subsection of LRA Section 4.2.7 and Table 4.2.7-2, on LRA pages 4-53 and 4-54, are revised as shown below in bolded italics to correct three typographical errors:  4.2.7       REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL REFLOOD THERMAL SHOCK ANALYSIS Recirculation Line Break Analysis In Reference 4.8.10, the Recirculation line break LOCA was evaluated. A summary of this analysis at selected times during the transient is presented in Table 4.2.7-2, but with updated material properties at 54 EFPY. Note that K Ic is determined using crack tip temperature at the maximum allowable crack depth of 0.052T and ART is based on the limiting inside surface (0T) fluence.
Table 4.2.7-2                                                                Crack Stability Analysis for Beltline Shells During Recirculation Line Break Time During Transient (s) 0 25 84 480 1200 3000 Temperature at 0.052T 550 450 450 160 120 80 Limiting 0T 54 EFPY ART 
(&#xba;F) 168 168 168 168 168 168 T-ART (&#xba;F) 382 282 282 48 -88 K Ic/1.414 (ksiin) 141 141 141 36 29 26 K I-applied at 0.52T 0.052T (ksiin) 33 47 20 56 47 24 Margin 4.3 3.0 7.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 Table 4.7-2 4.2.7-2 shows that at times 0, 25, 84, and 3,000 seconds after the start of the transient, the applied stress intensity factor, K I-applied at 0.52T 0.052T, is less than the available toughness, K Ic/1.414, calculated as a function of crack tip temperature and the bounding 0T fluence level. However, at 480 seconds and 1,200 seconds after the start of the transient, the applied stress intensity factor exceeds the available toughness value by 40 percent, which would indicate the initiation and propagation of a crack during that time period. However, since fluence actually attenuates as a function of distance from the inside surface, further analysis may be performed to take into account the reduced fluence as a function of crack depth. If crack initiation still occurs, the cracking must be shown to arrest prior to reaching 0.75T in order to meet the acceptance criteria.  

RS-15-256 Enclosure B Page 3 of 3 

As a result of the response to RAI 4.2.7-1a provided in Enclosure A of this letter, the Beltline Nozzles subsection of LRA Section 4.2.7 on LRA page 4-56 is revised as shown below:
Beltline Nozzles The N6 Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) nozzles are selected as the limiting beltline nozzles since the Emergency Core Coolant System (ECCS) injects coolant through this nozzle following a LOCA. Consequently, there is a severe thermal transient at this location following the design basis LOCA. The finite element analysis (FEA) results are documented in the LSCS Unit 1 and Unit 2 RPV stress analyses. The bounding temperature distribution in the LPCI Nozzle analyzed for both units is selected. A thermal stress distribution is developed from this temperature profile, which is then used to calculate a stress intensity factor. Since there is negligible pressure in the RPV following the LOCA event and since the location of the highest thermal stresses is remote from welds, there is no K I from internal pressure or weld residual stress. A flat plate K I solution for a point load acting at an arbitrary location along the crack front is selected. The point load is replaced with  (x)dx then integrated over the crack depth in order to obtain the K I caused by the thermal stress distribution. The same acceptance criteria as described for the beltline shells are applied for the nozzle. The resulting K I-applied value is approximately 35 ksiinch at a flaw depth of 0.052T. This is significantly less than the allowable fracture toughness value, (K Ic/1.414) of 141 ksiinch,. t T herefore , demonstrating adequate margin against non-ductile fracture has been demonstrated for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 N6 LPCI nozzles.}}