|
|
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | page count = 7 | | | page count = 7 |
| | project = TAC:MF0116, TAC:MF0159 | | | project = TAC:MF0116, TAC:MF0159 |
| | stage = Other | | | stage = Response to RAI |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:FENOCFEN O C76 South Main StreetFRst EneNuclearl. .Q .Akron. Ohio 44308Samuel L. BelcherSenior Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerNovember 26, 2013L-1 3-358 10 CFR 50.54(f)ATTN: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852SUBJECT:Davis-Besse Nuclear Power StationDocket No. 50-346, License No. NPF-3Perry Nuclear Power PlantDocket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58Response to Request for Additional Information Associated with the Seismic Aspects ofRecommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from theFukushima Dai-ichi Accident (TAC Nos. MF0116 and MF0159)On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter titled,"Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task ForceReview of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," to all power reactor licenseesand holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 3 of the10 CFR 50.54(f) letter contains specific Requested Actions, Requested Information, andRequired Responses associated with Recommendation 2.3 for Seismic Walkdowns. Byletter dated November 27, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and ManagementSystem (ADAMS) Package Accession No. ML130080030), FirstEnergy NuclearOperating Company (FENOC) submitted the 180-day response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f)letter. The required seismic walkdown reports were provided as Enclosures A, B, C,and D for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1); Beaver Valley PowerStation, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2); Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS); and PerryNuclear Power Plant (PNPP), respectively.By letter dated November 1, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13304B418), the NRCstaff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete its assessments ofthe seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. The response to the request forinformation is provided in Attachment 1. | | {{#Wiki_filter:FENOC FEN O C76 South Main Street FRst EneNuclearl. .Q .Akron. Ohio 44308 Samuel L. Belcher Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer November 26, 2013 L-1 3-358 10 CFR 50.54(f)ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power StationPerry Nuclear Power PlantL-1 3-358Page 2Updated seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP are provided in electronicformat on the enclosed CD-ROM. As requested by NRC guidance for electronicsubmissions, Attachment 2 provides a listing of document components that make up theenclosed CD-ROM.No new regulatory commitments are made in this letter. If there are any questions or ifadditional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager -FleetLicensing, at 330-315-6810.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed onNovember ; , 2013.Sincerely,Samuel L. BelcherAttachment:1 Response to Request for Additional Information2 Document Components on CD-ROMEnclosures on CD-ROM:Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 SeismicWalkdown Report Revision 1cc: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (w/o Enclosures)NRC Region III Administrator (w/o Enclosures)NRC Resident Inspector (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures)NRC Resident Inspector (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures)NRR Project Manager (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures)NRR Project Manager (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures)Utility Radiological Safety Board (w/o Enclosures)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Attachment== | | ==SUBJECT:== |
| 1L-1 3-358Response to Request for Additional InformationPage 1 of 4By letter dated November 1, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and ManagementSystem (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13304B418), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) staff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete itsassessments of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3 seismicwalkdown reports for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) and Perry NuclearPower Plant (PNPP). The response to the request for additional information (RAI) isprovided below. The NRC staff question is presented in bold type, followed by theFirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) response.RAI 1: Conduct of the walkdowns, determination of potentially adverse seismicconditions (PASCs), dispositioning of issues, and reportingAs a result of the audits and walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted thatlicensees' interpretations of the seismic walkdown guidance varied, whichresulted in meaningful differences in the process used to disposition identifiedissues and in the documentation that was provided to the NRC staff. Inparticular, the application of engineering judgment in determining whatconstituted a potentially adverse seismic condition (PASC), the threshold forconducting licensing basis evaluations (LBEs), and determining what informationwas to be reported to the NRC staff varied.The NRC staff intended that conditions initially marked No (N) or Unknown (U) inthe field by the seismic walkdown engineers (SWEs) for which an analysis orcalculation was performed would be considered as PASCs and that an analysis orcalculation constituted an LBE. The walkdown guidance allows for analysis aspart of engineering judgment; however, the intent was to allow for only simpleanalyses that could be readily performed in support of engineering judgment.Further, the walkdown activities were intended to allow for transparency in thelicensee's process to demonstrate that PASCs were appropriately identified, thatthey were addressed in an appropriate manner, and the basis documented suchthat the current condition of the plant was clearly consistent with the CLB withregard to seismic capability.During the audits, the NRC staff identified examples of field observations thatwere deemed not to be PASCs. However, the basis for the determination was notclearly recorded. In some cases, the field checklists were amplified by notingthat the basis was engineering judgment. During site audit discussions, the staffwas able to trace the basis for the engineering judgments and found that in manycases they were appropriate. It is expected that these situations would not beincluded in the walkdown report.
| | Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-346, License No. NPF-3 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Response to Request for Additional Information Associated with the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (TAC Nos. MF0116 and MF0159)On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter titled,"Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 3 of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter contains specific Requested Actions, Requested Information, and Required Responses associated with Recommendation 2.3 for Seismic Walkdowns. |
| | By letter dated November 27, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package Accession No. ML130080030), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted the 180-day response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f)letter. The required seismic walkdown reports were provided as Enclosures A, B, C, and D for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1); |
| | Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2); |
| | Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS); and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), respectively. |
| | By letter dated November 1, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13304B418), the NRC staff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete its assessments of the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. The response to the request for information is provided in Attachment |
| | : 1. |
| | Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Perry Nuclear Power Plant L-1 3-358 Page 2 Updated seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP are provided in electronic format on the enclosed CD-ROM. As requested by NRC guidance for electronic submissions, Attachment 2 provides a listing of document components that make up the enclosed CD-ROM.No new regulatory commitments are made in this letter. If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager -Fleet Licensing, at 330-315-6810. |
| | I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November ; , 2013.Sincerely, Samuel L. Belcher |
|
| |
|
| ==Attachment== | | ==Attachment:== |
| 1L-1 3-358Page 2 of 4There were other situations that a PASC and LBE were not reported; however, theNRC staff found during the audit that a calculation, analysis (more than justsimple), or evaluation was conducted but informally. An example is aconfirmatory calculation performed to demonstrate that six anchor bolts out ofeight was not a seismically adverse condition. Another example would be ananalysis to demonstrate that an existing, slightly short weld was as seismicallysound as the prescribed weld length in the plant design documentation. The staffexpected these types of conditions and evaluations to be captured in thelicensee's normal plant processes (e.g., condition report or corrective actionprogram (CAP)), and also reported in the walkdown report, since they werepotentially adverse seismic conditions that required more than applyingjudgment or simple analysis to address.The NRC staff also found that the process that was used to deal with a fieldobservation that was deemed to be a PASC was also not completely described orcaptured in the report. In many cases, the licensee reported that an LBE was notperformed. However, during the audits, it was clear that an LBE (or an equivalentdetermination method) was performed and used in determining whether a PASCshould be entered into the CAP. The staff expects that these conditions would bereported in the walkdown report.On the whole, through the audits, the NRC staff found that it was able to concludethat the intent of the guidance was met when the licensee's overall process wascompletely explained, the information was updated to reflect the actual process,and results were updated. The self-assessments conducted by the licensees ofthe audited plants also identified the lapse in the description of the process usedby the licensee to identify a PASC and disposition it.Therefore, in order to clarify the process that was followed, please provide adescription of the overall process used by the licensee (and its contractors) toevaluate observations identified in the field by the SWEs. The process shouldinclude how a field observation was determined to be a PASC or not and how thebases for determinations were recorded. Once a determination was made that anobservation was a PASC, describe the process for creating a condition report (orother tracking mechanism), performing the LBE (or other determination method),and the resultant action, such as entering it into the CAP, or documenting theresult and basis.Also, in order to confirm that the reported information supports concluding thatthe plant meets the CLB, please follow one of the following three acceptablealternatives:(a) Provide a supplement to the table or text from the original walkdownreport, if needed, to include similar conditions as the above examplesand situations and for conditions for which a calculation, analysis (ifmore than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Attachment==
| | 1 Response to Request for Additional Information 2 Document Components on CD-ROM Enclosures on CD-ROM: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation |
| 1L-1 3-358Page 3 of 4determination. The supplement should include a short description ofeach condition, how it was dispositioned and the basis for thedisposition, as follows: 1) for each condition that was entered into theCAP, provide the CAP reference number, initiation date, and (if known)the planned completion date, or 2) for all other conditions, provide theresult of the LBE (or other determination method), the basis for theresult, and how (or where) the result was captured in the plant'sdocumentation or existing plant process.(b) Following the plant's standard procedures, confirm that a new CAPentry has been made to verify if appropriate actions were taken whenreporting and dispositioning identified PASCs (including conditionsfor which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), orevaluation was used for a determination). The eventual CAP closeout,including the process followed and actions taken, should be insufficient detail to enable NRC resident inspectors to follow up.(c) If no new conditions are identified for addition to the supplement orthe CAP entry mentioned above is deemed not necessary, provide astatement of confirmation that all potentially seismic adverseconditions (including conditions for which a calculation, analysis (ifmore than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for adetermination) identified during the walkdowns and walk-bys wereaddressed and included in the report to the NRC.Response:In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, UnitNos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation 2.3 seismic walkdown report process. Proposedchanges to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-uptelephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. Asdiscussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley PowerStation, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRCaudit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment. As alsodiscussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reportsfor DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRCstaff in this RAI. Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports areprovided on the enclosed CD-ROM.Alternative (a) as described above was utilized to ensure the reported informationsupports concluding that the plants meet their current licensing basis (CLB). As such,alternatives (b) and (c) are not required. Each condition report entered into the CAPhas either had corrective actions closed or has been closed to another action trackingprocess, such as a notification in the work order process. The CAP allows the use ofthese notifications for conditions determined to not be a condition adverse to quality.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Attachment== | | ===2.3 Seismic=== |
| 1L-1 3-358Page 4 of 4RAI 2: Conduct of the Peer Review ProcessAs a result of the walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted that somedescriptions of the peer reviewers and the peer review process that was followedwere varied and, in some cases, unclear. In some cases, the staff could notconfirm details of the process, such as if the entire process was reviewed by thepeer review team, who were the peer reviewers, what was the role of each peerreviewer, and how the reviews affected the work, if at all, described in thewalkdown guidance.Therefore, in order to clarify the peer review process that was actually used,please confirm whether the following information on the peer review process wasprovided in the original submittal, and if not, provide the following.(a) Confirmation that the activities described in the walkdown guidanceon page 6-1 were assessed as part of the peer review process.(b) A complete summary of the peer review process and activities. Detailsshould include confirmation that any individual involved in performingany given walkdown activity was not a peer reviewer for that sameactivity. If there were cases in which peer reviewers reviewed theirown work, please justify how this is in accordance with the objectivesof the peer review efforts.Also, if there are differences from the original submittal, please provide adescription of the above information. If there are differences in the review areasor the manner in which the peer reviews were conducted, describe the actualprocess that was used.Response:In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, UnitNos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation 2.3 seismic walkdown report process. Proposedchanges to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-uptelephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. Asdiscussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley PowerStation, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRCaudit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment. As alsodiscussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reportsfor DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRCstaff in this RAI. Section 9.2 of the reports describe details of the peer review processin accordance with the walkdown guidance on page 6-1 as noted in (a) above.Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports are provided on theenclosed CD-ROM.
| | Walkdown Report Revision 1 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation |
|
| |
|
| ==Attachment== | | ===2.3 Seismic=== |
| 2L-1 3-358Document Components on CD-ROMPage 1 of IFile Name001 DBNPS Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl.pdf002 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf003 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf004 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf005 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App G.pdf006 PNPP Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl .pdf007 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf008 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf009 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf010 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App F.pdfSize19,798 KB17,570 KB31,334 KB27,711 KB19,559 KB17,304 KB16,991 KB33,402 KB49,479 KB26,915 KB
| | Walkdown Report Revision 1 cc: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (w/o Enclosures) |
| }} | | NRC Region III Administrator (w/o Enclosures) |
| | NRC Resident Inspector (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures) |
| | NRC Resident Inspector (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures) |
| | NRR Project Manager (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures) |
| | NRR Project Manager (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures) |
| | Utility Radiological Safety Board (w/o Enclosures) |
| | Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 1 of 4 By letter dated November 1, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13304B418), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete its assessments of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation |
| | |
| | ===2.3 seismic=== |
| | walkdown reports for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP). The response to the request for additional information (RAI) is provided below. The NRC staff question is presented in bold type, followed by the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) response.RAI 1: Conduct of the walkdowns, determination of potentially adverse seismic conditions (PASCs), dispositioning of issues, and reporting As a result of the audits and walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted that licensees' interpretations of the seismic walkdown guidance varied, which resulted in meaningful differences in the process used to disposition identified issues and in the documentation that was provided to the NRC staff. In particular, the application of engineering judgment in determining what constituted a potentially adverse seismic condition (PASC), the threshold for conducting licensing basis evaluations (LBEs), and determining what information was to be reported to the NRC staff varied.The NRC staff intended that conditions initially marked No (N) or Unknown (U) in the field by the seismic walkdown engineers (SWEs) for which an analysis or calculation was performed would be considered as PASCs and that an analysis or calculation constituted an LBE. The walkdown guidance allows for analysis as part of engineering judgment; however, the intent was to allow for only simple analyses that could be readily performed in support of engineering judgment.Further, the walkdown activities were intended to allow for transparency in the licensee's process to demonstrate that PASCs were appropriately identified, that they were addressed in an appropriate manner, and the basis documented such that the current condition of the plant was clearly consistent with the CLB with regard to seismic capability. |
| | During the audits, the NRC staff identified examples of field observations that were deemed not to be PASCs. However, the basis for the determination was not clearly recorded. |
| | In some cases, the field checklists were amplified by noting that the basis was engineering judgment. |
| | During site audit discussions, the staff was able to trace the basis for the engineering judgments and found that in many cases they were appropriate. |
| | It is expected that these situations would not be included in the walkdown report. |
| | Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 2 of 4 There were other situations that a PASC and LBE were not reported; however, the NRC staff found during the audit that a calculation, analysis (more than just simple), or evaluation was conducted but informally. |
| | An example is a confirmatory calculation performed to demonstrate that six anchor bolts out of eight was not a seismically adverse condition. |
| | Another example would be an analysis to demonstrate that an existing, slightly short weld was as seismically sound as the prescribed weld length in the plant design documentation. |
| | The staff expected these types of conditions and evaluations to be captured in the licensee's normal plant processes (e.g., condition report or corrective action program (CAP)), and also reported in the walkdown report, since they were potentially adverse seismic conditions that required more than applying judgment or simple analysis to address.The NRC staff also found that the process that was used to deal with a field observation that was deemed to be a PASC was also not completely described or captured in the report. In many cases, the licensee reported that an LBE was not performed. |
| | However, during the audits, it was clear that an LBE (or an equivalent determination method) was performed and used in determining whether a PASC should be entered into the CAP. The staff expects that these conditions would be reported in the walkdown report.On the whole, through the audits, the NRC staff found that it was able to conclude that the intent of the guidance was met when the licensee's overall process was completely explained, the information was updated to reflect the actual process, and results were updated. The self-assessments conducted by the licensees of the audited plants also identified the lapse in the description of the process used by the licensee to identify a PASC and disposition it.Therefore, in order to clarify the process that was followed, please provide a description of the overall process used by the licensee (and its contractors) to evaluate observations identified in the field by the SWEs. The process should include how a field observation was determined to be a PASC or not and how the bases for determinations were recorded. |
| | Once a determination was made that an observation was a PASC, describe the process for creating a condition report (or other tracking mechanism), performing the LBE (or other determination method), and the resultant action, such as entering it into the CAP, or documenting the result and basis.Also, in order to confirm that the reported information supports concluding that the plant meets the CLB, please follow one of the following three acceptable alternatives: (a) Provide a supplement to the table or text from the original walkdown report, if needed, to include similar conditions as the above examples and situations and for conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 3 of 4 determination. |
| | The supplement should include a short description of each condition, how it was dispositioned and the basis for the disposition, as follows: 1) for each condition that was entered into the CAP, provide the CAP reference number, initiation date, and (if known)the planned completion date, or 2) for all other conditions, provide the result of the LBE (or other determination method), the basis for the result, and how (or where) the result was captured in the plant's documentation or existing plant process.(b) Following the plant's standard procedures, confirm that a new CAP entry has been made to verify if appropriate actions were taken when reporting and dispositioning identified PASCs (including conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a determination). |
| | The eventual CAP closeout, including the process followed and actions taken, should be in sufficient detail to enable NRC resident inspectors to follow up.(c) If no new conditions are identified for addition to the supplement or the CAP entry mentioned above is deemed not necessary, provide a statement of confirmation that all potentially seismic adverse conditions (including conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a determination) identified during the walkdowns and walk-bys were addressed and included in the report to the NRC.Response: In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation |
| | |
| | ===2.3 seismic=== |
| | walkdown report process. Proposed changes to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-up telephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. As discussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRC audit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment. |
| | As also discussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRC staff in this RAI. Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports are provided on the enclosed CD-ROM.Alternative (a) as described above was utilized to ensure the reported information supports concluding that the plants meet their current licensing basis (CLB). As such, alternatives (b) and (c) are not required. |
| | Each condition report entered into the CAP has either had corrective actions closed or has been closed to another action tracking process, such as a notification in the work order process. The CAP allows the use of these notifications for conditions determined to not be a condition adverse to quality. |
| | Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 4 of 4 RAI 2: Conduct of the Peer Review Process As a result of the walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted that some descriptions of the peer reviewers and the peer review process that was followed were varied and, in some cases, unclear. In some cases, the staff could not confirm details of the process, such as if the entire process was reviewed by the peer review team, who were the peer reviewers, what was the role of each peer reviewer, and how the reviews affected the work, if at all, described in the walkdown guidance.Therefore, in order to clarify the peer review process that was actually used, please confirm whether the following information on the peer review process was provided in the original submittal, and if not, provide the following.(a) Confirmation that the activities described in the walkdown guidance on page 6-1 were assessed as part of the peer review process.(b) A complete summary of the peer review process and activities. |
| | Details should include confirmation that any individual involved in performing any given walkdown activity was not a peer reviewer for that same activity. |
| | If there were cases in which peer reviewers reviewed their own work, please justify how this is in accordance with the objectives of the peer review efforts.Also, if there are differences from the original submittal, please provide a description of the above information. |
| | If there are differences in the review areas or the manner in which the peer reviews were conducted, describe the actual process that was used.Response: In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation |
| | |
| | ===2.3 seismic=== |
| | walkdown report process. Proposed changes to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-up telephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. As discussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRC audit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment. |
| | As also discussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRC staff in this RAI. Section 9.2 of the reports describe details of the peer review process in accordance with the walkdown guidance on page 6-1 as noted in (a) above.Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports are provided on the enclosed CD-ROM. |
| | Attachment 2 L-1 3-358 Document Components on CD-ROM Page 1 of I File Name 001 DBNPS Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl.pdf 002 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf 003 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf 004 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf 005 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App G.pdf 006 PNPP Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl .pdf 007 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf 008 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf 009 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf 010 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App F.pdf Size 19,798 KB 17,570 KB 31,334 KB 27,711 KB 19,559 KB 17,304 KB 16,991 KB 33,402 KB 49,479 KB 26,915 KB}} |
Letter Sequence Response to RAI |
---|
|
Results
Other: ML13135A229, ML13135A230, ML13135A231, ML13135A233, ML13135A234, ML13135A235, ML13135A236, ML13135A237, ML13135A238, ML13135A240, ML13135A241, ML13135A242, ML13135A243, ML13135A244, ML13135A245, ML13135A246, ML13135A247, ML13135A248, ML13135A249, ML13135A251, ML14134A517
|
MONTHYEARML13135A2422012-08-10010 August 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Cover Through Page 176 Project stage: Other ML13135A2432012-08-10010 August 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix a - Resumes and Qualifications Project stage: Other ML13135A2442012-08-10010 August 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 1 of 379 Through Sheet 201 of 379 Project stage: Other ML13135A2452012-08-10010 August 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 202 of 379 Through Sheet 379 of 379 Project stage: Other ML13135A2462012-08-10010 August 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix C - Area Walk-by Checklists (Awcs) Through End Project stage: Other ML13135A2292012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendices C Through End Project stage: Other ML13135A2472012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Cover Through Page 153 Project stage: Other ML13135A2482012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix a - Resumes and Qualifications Project stage: Other ML13135A2492012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walk-Down Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 1 of 461 Through Sheet 203 of 461 Project stage: Other ML13135A2512012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walk-Down Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 204 of 461 Through Sheet 461 of 461 Project stage: Other ML13135A2352012-10-23023 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendices C Through E Project stage: Other ML13135A2342012-10-23023 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 201 of 439 Through Sheet 439 of 439 Project stage: Other ML13135A2332012-10-23023 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 1 of 439 Through Sheet 200 of 439 Project stage: Other ML13135A2312012-10-23023 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix a - Resumes and Qualifications Project stage: Other ML13135A2302012-10-23023 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Project stage: Other ML13135A2412012-10-31031 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix C - Area Walk-by Checklists (Awcs) and Appendix D - Component List for Anchorage Configuration Check Project stage: Other ML13135A2402012-10-31031 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 302 of 513 Through Sheet 513 of 513 Project stage: Other ML13135A2382012-10-31031 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walkdown Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 1 of 513 Through Sheet 301 of 513 Project stage: Other ML13135A2372012-10-31031 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix a - Resumes and Qualifications Project stage: Other ML13135A2362012-10-31031 October 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Project stage: Other L-13-118, Resubmittal of FENOC Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima.2013-04-29029 April 2013 Resubmittal of FENOC Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima. Project stage: Response to RAI ML13304B4182013-11-0101 November 2013 Request for Additional Information Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, Seismic Walkdowns Project stage: RAI ML13340A1472013-11-26026 November 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Response to RAI Associated with Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (TAC Nos. MF0116 & MF0 Project stage: Response to RAI ML14115A2342014-05-30030 May 2014 Staff Assessment of the Seismic Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident Project stage: Other ML14134A5172014-05-30030 May 2014 Staff Assessment of the Seismic Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident Project stage: Other 2012-09-28
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARIR 05000346/20244032024-09-27027 September 2024 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000346/2024403 L-24-025, Submittal of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 352024-09-25025 September 2024 Submittal of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 35 05000346/LER-2021-001, Emergency Diesel Generator Speed Switch Failure Due to Direct Current System Ground2024-09-19019 September 2024 Emergency Diesel Generator Speed Switch Failure Due to Direct Current System Ground ML24134A1522024-09-17017 September 2024 Exemption from the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) Final Safety Analysis Report Update Schedule (EPID L-2024-LLE-0005) - Letter ML24260A2382024-09-16016 September 2024 Notification of an NRC Biennial Licensed Operator Requalification Program Inspection and Request for Information L-24-207, License Renewal Application for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant-Response to Request for Additional Information - Set 12024-09-16016 September 2024 License Renewal Application for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant-Response to Request for Additional Information - Set 1 ML24225A0512024-09-13013 September 2024 Issuance of Alternative Request VR-9, Revision 0, Associated with the Fourth 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval ML24256A0872024-09-11011 September 2024 Fws to NRC, Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Nlaa Determinations for Perry License Renewal ML24255A8032024-09-11011 September 2024 Technical Specification 5.6.6 Steam Generator Tube Inspection 180-Day Report L-24-201, Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration2024-09-0909 September 2024 Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration ML24250A0412024-09-0606 September 2024 Fws to NRC, Perry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, License Renewal List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected ML24249A0882024-09-0606 September 2024 Letter to Rickey Armstrong, President_ Re. NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24249A0862024-09-0606 September 2024 Letter to Regina Gasco-Bentley, Chairperson_ Re. NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24249A0782024-09-0606 September 2024 Ltr. to Kenneth Meshigaud, Chairperson, _ Re., NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24249A0752024-09-0606 September 2024 Letter to Charles Diebold, Chief_ Re. NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24249A0762024-09-0606 September 2024 Letter to Douglas Lankford, Chief_ Re. NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24247A0212024-09-0606 September 2024 NRC Request for Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Determinations for Perry License Renewal, Issuance of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment (Consultation Code: 2024-0006782) ML24166A0172024-09-0606 September 2024 Ltr. to Glenna Wallace, Chief, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Re., NOA of the Draft Site-Specific EIS and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected by Perry Plant Unit 1 Lr ML24255A8642024-09-0606 September 2024 Rscc Wire & Cable LLC Dba Marmon Industrial Energy & Infrastructure - Part 21 Retraction of Final Notification ML24249A1602024-09-0505 September 2024 Information Request to Support Upcoming Material Control and Accounting Inspection at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-24-200, License Renewal Application for Revision to Supplement 4 for Editorial Corrections2024-09-0505 September 2024 License Renewal Application for Revision to Supplement 4 for Editorial Corrections ML24228A1702024-09-0303 September 2024 Ltr to Rod L. Penfield-Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1-Notice of Avail of the Draft Supp 61 to the GEIS for License Renew of Nuclear Plants ML24228A1712024-09-0303 September 2024 Ltr to Brian Dickens, EPA-Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1-Notice of Avail of the Draft Supp 61 to the GEIS for License Renew of Nuclear Plants ML24240A1482024-08-27027 August 2024 Notification of an NRC Biennial Licensed Operator Requalification Program Inspection and Request for Information L-24-188, Submittal of Quality Assurance Program Manual, Revision 302024-08-27027 August 2024 Submittal of Quality Assurance Program Manual, Revision 30 L-24-190, Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration2024-08-26026 August 2024 Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration ML24239A7782024-08-26026 August 2024 Aging Management Audit - Perry Unit 1 - License Renewal Application August 26 2024 ML24239A3972024-08-23023 August 2024 Rssc Wire & Cable LLC Dba Marmon - Part 21 Final Notification - 57243-EN 57243 IR 05000346/20240052024-08-22022 August 2024 Updated Inspection Plan for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Report 05000346/2024005) IR 05000440/20240052024-08-22022 August 2024 Updated Inspection Plan for Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Report 05000440/2024005) L-24-174, Response to Perry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Environmental Report Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 2nd Round Request for Additional Information2024-08-15015 August 2024 Response to Perry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Environmental Report Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 2nd Round Request for Additional Information L-24-186, Response to RAI for Exemption Request from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) Final Safety Analysis Update Schedule2024-08-15015 August 2024 Response to RAI for Exemption Request from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) Final Safety Analysis Update Schedule L-24-178, License Renewal Application Revision O - Supplement 42024-08-0808 August 2024 License Renewal Application Revision O - Supplement 4 IR 05000440/20240022024-08-0808 August 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000440/2024002 L-24-189, License Renewal Application for Revision O - Supplement 12024-08-0707 August 2024 License Renewal Application for Revision O - Supplement 1 IR 05000346/20240022024-08-0101 August 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000346/2024002 IR 05000346/20244012024-07-30030 July 2024 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000346/2024401 L-24-171, Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration2024-07-30030 July 2024 Spent Fuel Storage Cask Registration ML24150A2022024-07-25025 July 2024 Letter to Rod L. Penfield-Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1-License Renewal Scoping Summary Rpt ML24208A0962024-07-25025 July 2024 57243-EN 57243 - Rssc Wire & Cable LLC, Dba Marmon - Part 21 Notification L-24-108, License Renewal Application, Revision 0 - Supplement 32024-07-24024 July 2024 License Renewal Application, Revision 0 - Supplement 3 L-24-168, Technical Specification Required Shutdown Due to Increase in RCS Unidentified Leakage2024-07-15015 July 2024 Technical Specification Required Shutdown Due to Increase in RCS Unidentified Leakage L-24-032, Cycle 23 and Refueling Outage 23 Inservice Inspection Summary Report2024-07-15015 July 2024 Cycle 23 and Refueling Outage 23 Inservice Inspection Summary Report IR 05000440/20244012024-07-0909 July 2024 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000440/2024401 L-24-063, License Amendment Request to Remove the Table of Contents from the Technical Specifications2024-07-0808 July 2024 License Amendment Request to Remove the Table of Contents from the Technical Specifications L-24-036, Annual 10 CFR 50.46 Report of Changes to or Errors in Emergency Core Cooling System Evaluation Models2024-06-27027 June 2024 Annual 10 CFR 50.46 Report of Changes to or Errors in Emergency Core Cooling System Evaluation Models L-24-020, License Renewal Application for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Revision 0, Supplement 22024-06-27027 June 2024 License Renewal Application for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Revision 0, Supplement 2 L-24-155, Reactor Water Clean Up Leak Detection Loss of Safety Function2024-06-27027 June 2024 Reactor Water Clean Up Leak Detection Loss of Safety Function L-24-140, Operation of the Residual Heat Removal Loops B and C Alternate Keep Fill Configuration Was Prohibited by Technical Specifications and Resulted in an Unanalyzed Condition2024-06-20020 June 2024 Operation of the Residual Heat Removal Loops B and C Alternate Keep Fill Configuration Was Prohibited by Technical Specifications and Resulted in an Unanalyzed Condition L-24-024, Annual 10 CFR 50.46 Report of Changes to or Errors in Emergency Core Cooling System Evaluation Models2024-06-19019 June 2024 Annual 10 CFR 50.46 Report of Changes to or Errors in Emergency Core Cooling System Evaluation Models 2024-09-09
[Table view] Category:Report
MONTHYEARML24250A0412024-09-0606 September 2024 Fws to NRC, Perry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, License Renewal List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected L-23-214, Submittal of Relief Request for Impractical American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements2024-06-0505 June 2024 Submittal of Relief Request for Impractical American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Examination Requirements L-23-171, CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-9. Revision 0, Feedwater Check Valve Exercising Test Frequency2023-12-0808 December 2023 CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-9. Revision 0, Feedwater Check Valve Exercising Test Frequency L-23-188, Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Supplement to Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Licenses and Conforming License Amendments2023-08-0707 August 2023 Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Supplement to Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Licenses and Conforming License Amendments L-22-253, Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report, Revision 52023-01-10010 January 2023 Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report, Revision 5 L-22-211, Technical Specification 5.6.6 Steam Generator Tube Inspection 180-Day Report2022-09-29029 September 2022 Technical Specification 5.6.6 Steam Generator Tube Inspection 180-Day Report L-22-216, Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. Revision 42022-09-27027 September 2022 Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. Revision 4 L-22-149, Post Accident Monitoring Report2022-06-23023 June 2022 Post Accident Monitoring Report ML22202A4362022-04-0808 April 2022 Enclosure F: Updated Inputs to 52 EFPY P-T Operating Curves ML22202A4372022-03-0202 March 2022 Enclosure G: Framatome Inc. Document 86-9344713-000, Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel Embrittlement Fluence Reconciliation Through 60 Years IR 05000346/20210902021-12-16016 December 2021 Reissue Davis-Besse NRC Inspection Report (05000346/2021090) Preliminary White Finding ML21322A2892021-12-0909 December 2021 Approval of Plant-Specific Analysis of Certain Reactor Vessel Internal Components in Accordance with License Renewal Commitment No. 53 L-21-045, 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-4, Revision 0, Exercising Test Frequency, VR-6, Revision 0, Position Verification Testing, and VR-8, Revision 0, Valve Test Frequency Extension2021-02-0808 February 2021 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-4, Revision 0, Exercising Test Frequency, VR-6, Revision 0, Position Verification Testing, and VR-8, Revision 0, Valve Test Frequency Extension ML20302A3022020-09-25025 September 2020 1 to Technical Requirements Manual ML19255H0992019-10-10010 October 2019 Staff Assessment of Flooding Focused Evaluation L-19-189, 54010-CALC-01, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station: Evaluation of Risk Significance of Permanent ILRT Extension.2019-07-29029 July 2019 54010-CALC-01, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station: Evaluation of Risk Significance of Permanent ILRT Extension. ML22262A1522019-05-0101 May 2019 Framatome Inc., Document ANP-2718NP, Revision 007, Appendix G Pressure-Temperature Limits for 52 EFPY for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ML22202A4332019-04-30030 April 2019 Enclosure C: Framatome ANP-2718NP, Rev. 7, Appendix G Pressure-Temperature Limits for 52 EFPY for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-18-186, Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-8312018-09-0707 September 2018 Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-831 L-18-108, Request to Extend Enforcement Discretion Provided in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 15-002 for Tornado-Generated Missile Protection Non-Conformance Identified in Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-06, Tornado Missile....2018-04-12012 April 2018 Request to Extend Enforcement Discretion Provided in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 15-002 for Tornado-Generated Missile Protection Non-Conformance Identified in Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-06, Tornado Missile.... ML18149A2812018-02-16016 February 2018 2017 ATI Environmental Inc. Midwest Laboratory Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program L-17-270, Notification of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Evaluation Model Change Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.462017-09-0101 September 2017 Notification of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Evaluation Model Change Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46 L-17-234, High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the ...2017-08-11011 August 2017 High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the ... L-17-229, Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) for Flooding2017-07-24024 July 2017 Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) for Flooding L-17-039, 2016 Annual Report of Emergency Core Cooling System Errors and Model Changes2017-04-0505 April 2017 2016 Annual Report of Emergency Core Cooling System Errors and Model Changes ML17086A0322017-03-31031 March 2017 Enclosure B to L-17-105, Areva Report ANP-3542NP, Revision 1, Time-Limited Aging Analysis (TLAA) Regarding Reactor Vessel Internals Loss of Ductility at 60 Years L-17-088, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Changes, Tests and Experiments2017-03-27027 March 2017 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Changes, Tests and Experiments ML17026A0082016-12-31031 December 2016 Areva Report ANP-3542NP, Time-Limited Aging Analysis (TLAA) Regarding Reactor Vessel Internals Loss of Ductility for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 at 60 Years (Non Proprietary) L-16-229, Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report, Revision 32016-07-28028 July 2016 Submittal of Pressure and Temperature Limits Report, Revision 3 ML21106A0222016-05-31031 May 2016 Enclosure a - Evaluation Attachment 5 - FLO-2D Verification Report (Report Attachment 2) L-16-148, Fatigue Monitoring Program Evaluation of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Components for Effects of the Reactor Coolant Environment on Fatigue Usage (I.E., Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue)2016-04-21021 April 2016 Fatigue Monitoring Program Evaluation of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Components for Effects of the Reactor Coolant Environment on Fatigue Usage (I.E., Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue) L-16-091, Revision of Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report in Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Per 10CFR50.54(f) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the Fukush2016-03-24024 March 2016 Revision of Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report in Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Per 10CFR50.54(f) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the Fukush L-15-281, Submittal of Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments2015-10-23023 October 2015 Submittal of Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments L-15-288, Response to NRC Letter. Request for Information, Per 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1. 2.3. and 9.3. of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident2015-10-0202 October 2015 Response to NRC Letter. Request for Information, Per 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1. 2.3. and 9.3. of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident ML15230A2892015-08-25025 August 2015 Staff Assessment of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review ML15208A0342015-08-0303 August 2015 Staff Assessment of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force L-15-193, Submittal of the 2015 Silicone Sealant Report Pursuant to License Commitment 172015-06-12012 June 2015 Submittal of the 2015 Silicone Sealant Report Pursuant to License Commitment 17 L-15-108, ISFSI - Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period of January 1, 2013 Through December 31, 20142015-04-0303 April 2015 ISFSI - Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period of January 1, 2013 Through December 31, 2014 L-14-401, First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Reports Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of In2014-12-19019 December 2014 First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Reports Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of In ML14353A0602014-11-0303 November 2014 2734296-R-010, Rev. 0, Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-14-289, Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. Revision 22014-09-22022 September 2014 Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. Revision 2 L-14-259, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S (Fenoc'S) Third Six-Month Status Report in Response to March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051)2014-08-28028 August 2014 Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S (Fenoc'S) Third Six-Month Status Report in Response to March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051) L-14-254, 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package2014-08-15015 August 2014 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package ML14141A4602014-06-30030 June 2014 Staff Assessment of the Flooding Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident ML14141A5252014-06-30030 June 2014 Staff Assessment of the Flooding Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident ML14176A9612014-06-24024 June 2014 Submittal of Non-Proprietary BWROG Technical Product, BWROGTP-11-006 - ECCS Containment Walkdown Procedure, Rev 1 (January 2011), as Formally Requested During the Public Meeting Held on April 30, 2014 L-14-198, Report of Changes and Errors Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.462014-06-18018 June 2014 Report of Changes and Errors Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46 L-14-167, Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period Ending May 26, 20142014-06-18018 June 2014 Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period Ending May 26, 2014 ML14134A5172014-05-30030 May 2014 Staff Assessment of the Seismic Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident ML14115A2342014-05-30030 May 2014 Staff Assessment of the Seismic Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident 2024-09-06
[Table view] Category:Miscellaneous
MONTHYEARML24250A0412024-09-0606 September 2024 Fws to NRC, Perry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, License Renewal List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected L-23-171, CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-9. Revision 0, Feedwater Check Valve Exercising Test Frequency2023-12-0808 December 2023 CFR 50.55a Request Number VR-9. Revision 0, Feedwater Check Valve Exercising Test Frequency L-23-188, Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Supplement to Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Licenses and Conforming License Amendments2023-08-0707 August 2023 Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Supplement to Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Licenses and Conforming License Amendments IR 05000346/20210902021-12-16016 December 2021 Reissue Davis-Besse NRC Inspection Report (05000346/2021090) Preliminary White Finding L-18-186, Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-8312018-09-0707 September 2018 Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-831 L-18-108, Request to Extend Enforcement Discretion Provided in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 15-002 for Tornado-Generated Missile Protection Non-Conformance Identified in Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-06, Tornado Missile....2018-04-12012 April 2018 Request to Extend Enforcement Discretion Provided in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum 15-002 for Tornado-Generated Missile Protection Non-Conformance Identified in Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-06, Tornado Missile.... L-17-229, Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) for Flooding2017-07-24024 July 2017 Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) for Flooding L-17-039, 2016 Annual Report of Emergency Core Cooling System Errors and Model Changes2017-04-0505 April 2017 2016 Annual Report of Emergency Core Cooling System Errors and Model Changes L-17-088, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Changes, Tests and Experiments2017-03-27027 March 2017 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Changes, Tests and Experiments L-16-148, Fatigue Monitoring Program Evaluation of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Components for Effects of the Reactor Coolant Environment on Fatigue Usage (I.E., Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue)2016-04-21021 April 2016 Fatigue Monitoring Program Evaluation of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Components for Effects of the Reactor Coolant Environment on Fatigue Usage (I.E., Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue) L-16-091, Revision of Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report in Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Per 10CFR50.54(f) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the Fukush2016-03-24024 March 2016 Revision of Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report in Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Per 10CFR50.54(f) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of Insights from the Fukush L-15-281, Submittal of Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments2015-10-23023 October 2015 Submittal of Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments ML15230A2892015-08-25025 August 2015 Staff Assessment of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review ML15208A0342015-08-0303 August 2015 Staff Assessment of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force L-15-193, Submittal of the 2015 Silicone Sealant Report Pursuant to License Commitment 172015-06-12012 June 2015 Submittal of the 2015 Silicone Sealant Report Pursuant to License Commitment 17 L-15-108, ISFSI - Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period of January 1, 2013 Through December 31, 20142015-04-0303 April 2015 ISFSI - Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period of January 1, 2013 Through December 31, 2014 L-14-401, First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Reports Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of In2014-12-19019 December 2014 First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Reports Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of In ML14353A0602014-11-0303 November 2014 2734296-R-010, Rev. 0, Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-14-259, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S (Fenoc'S) Third Six-Month Status Report in Response to March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051)2014-08-28028 August 2014 Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S (Fenoc'S) Third Six-Month Status Report in Response to March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051) L-14-254, 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package2014-08-15015 August 2014 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package ML14141A5252014-06-30030 June 2014 Staff Assessment of the Flooding Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident ML14141A4602014-06-30030 June 2014 Staff Assessment of the Flooding Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident L-14-167, Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period Ending May 26, 20142014-06-18018 June 2014 Report of Facility Changes, Tests and Experiments for the Period Ending May 26, 2014 L-14-198, Report of Changes and Errors Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.462014-06-18018 June 2014 Report of Changes and Errors Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46 ML14115A2342014-05-30030 May 2014 Staff Assessment of the Seismic Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima DAI-ICHI Nuclear Power Plant Accident L-14-104, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co. Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (F) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident2014-03-11011 March 2014 Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co. Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (F) Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident ML13340A1592013-11-26026 November 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix a ML13340A1472013-11-26026 November 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Response to RAI Associated with Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (TAC Nos. MF0116 & MF0 ML13340A1632013-10-0909 October 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix C to Appendix G ML13340A1622013-10-0909 October 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix B (2 of 2) ML13340A1602013-10-0909 October 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix B (1 of 2) ML13340A1582013-10-0909 October 2013 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1 L-13-358, Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix B (2 of 2)2013-10-0909 October 2013 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix B (2 of 2) ML13340A1572013-10-0909 October 2013 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix B (1 of 2) ML13340A1562013-10-0909 October 2013 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1, Appendix a ML13340A1552013-10-0909 October 2013 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report Revision 1 L-13-300, Submittal of 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the 8-120B Cask2013-10-0101 October 2013 Submittal of 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the 8-120B Cask L-13-164, Addendum to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report2013-06-18018 June 2013 Addendum to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report L-13-157, Generic Safety Issue 191 Resolution Plan2013-05-15015 May 2013 Generic Safety Issue 191 Resolution Plan L-12-347, FENOC Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident2012-11-27027 November 2012 FENOC Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Flooding Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident ML13008A0512012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B: Seismic Walkdown Checklists, Page B-1, Sheet 123 of 513 Through Sheet 247 of 513 ML13135A2512012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walk-Down Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 204 of 461 Through Sheet 461 of 461 ML13135A2492012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B - Seismic Walk-Down Checklists (Swcs), Sheet 1 of 461 Through Sheet 203 of 461 ML13135A2472012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Cover Through Page 153 ML13008A0502012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B: Seismic Walkdown Checklists, Page B-1, Sheet 1 of 513 Through Sheet 122 of 513 ML13008A0492012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Cover Through Appendix a, Resumes and Qualifications, Page A-36 ML13008A0522012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B: Seismic Walkdown Checklists, Page B-1, Sheet 248 of 513 Through Sheet 367 of 513 ML13008A0532012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix B: Seismic Walkdown Checklists, Page B-1, Sheet 368 of 513 Through Sheet 481 of 513 ML13008A0552012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix C: Area Walk-by Checklists, Sheet 86 of 212 Through End ML13135A2482012-09-28028 September 2012 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix a - Resumes and Qualifications 2024-09-06
[Table view] |
Text
FENOC FEN O C76 South Main Street FRst EneNuclearl. .Q .Akron. Ohio 44308 Samuel L. Belcher Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer November 26, 2013 L-1 3-358 10 CFR 50.54(f)ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
SUBJECT:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-346, License No. NPF-3 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Response to Request for Additional Information Associated with the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (TAC Nos. MF0116 and MF0159)On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter titled,"Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 3 of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter contains specific Requested Actions, Requested Information, and Required Responses associated with Recommendation 2.3 for Seismic Walkdowns.
By letter dated November 27, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package Accession No. ML130080030), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted the 180-day response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f)letter. The required seismic walkdown reports were provided as Enclosures A, B, C, and D for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1);
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2);
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS); and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), respectively.
By letter dated November 1, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13304B418), the NRC staff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete its assessments of the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. The response to the request for information is provided in Attachment
- 1.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Perry Nuclear Power Plant L-1 3-358 Page 2 Updated seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP are provided in electronic format on the enclosed CD-ROM. As requested by NRC guidance for electronic submissions, Attachment 2 provides a listing of document components that make up the enclosed CD-ROM.No new regulatory commitments are made in this letter. If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager -Fleet Licensing, at 330-315-6810.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November ; , 2013.Sincerely, Samuel L. Belcher
Attachment:
1 Response to Request for Additional Information 2 Document Components on CD-ROM Enclosures on CD-ROM: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation
2.3 Seismic
Walkdown Report Revision 1 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation
2.3 Seismic
Walkdown Report Revision 1 cc: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (w/o Enclosures)
NRC Region III Administrator (w/o Enclosures)
NRC Resident Inspector (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures)
NRC Resident Inspector (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures)
NRR Project Manager (DBNPS) (w/o Enclosures)
NRR Project Manager (PNPP) (w/o Enclosures)
Utility Radiological Safety Board (w/o Enclosures)
Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 1 of 4 By letter dated November 1, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13304B418), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information to allow the staff to complete its assessments of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation
2.3 seismic
walkdown reports for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP). The response to the request for additional information (RAI) is provided below. The NRC staff question is presented in bold type, followed by the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) response.RAI 1: Conduct of the walkdowns, determination of potentially adverse seismic conditions (PASCs), dispositioning of issues, and reporting As a result of the audits and walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted that licensees' interpretations of the seismic walkdown guidance varied, which resulted in meaningful differences in the process used to disposition identified issues and in the documentation that was provided to the NRC staff. In particular, the application of engineering judgment in determining what constituted a potentially adverse seismic condition (PASC), the threshold for conducting licensing basis evaluations (LBEs), and determining what information was to be reported to the NRC staff varied.The NRC staff intended that conditions initially marked No (N) or Unknown (U) in the field by the seismic walkdown engineers (SWEs) for which an analysis or calculation was performed would be considered as PASCs and that an analysis or calculation constituted an LBE. The walkdown guidance allows for analysis as part of engineering judgment; however, the intent was to allow for only simple analyses that could be readily performed in support of engineering judgment.Further, the walkdown activities were intended to allow for transparency in the licensee's process to demonstrate that PASCs were appropriately identified, that they were addressed in an appropriate manner, and the basis documented such that the current condition of the plant was clearly consistent with the CLB with regard to seismic capability.
During the audits, the NRC staff identified examples of field observations that were deemed not to be PASCs. However, the basis for the determination was not clearly recorded.
In some cases, the field checklists were amplified by noting that the basis was engineering judgment.
During site audit discussions, the staff was able to trace the basis for the engineering judgments and found that in many cases they were appropriate.
It is expected that these situations would not be included in the walkdown report.
Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 2 of 4 There were other situations that a PASC and LBE were not reported; however, the NRC staff found during the audit that a calculation, analysis (more than just simple), or evaluation was conducted but informally.
An example is a confirmatory calculation performed to demonstrate that six anchor bolts out of eight was not a seismically adverse condition.
Another example would be an analysis to demonstrate that an existing, slightly short weld was as seismically sound as the prescribed weld length in the plant design documentation.
The staff expected these types of conditions and evaluations to be captured in the licensee's normal plant processes (e.g., condition report or corrective action program (CAP)), and also reported in the walkdown report, since they were potentially adverse seismic conditions that required more than applying judgment or simple analysis to address.The NRC staff also found that the process that was used to deal with a field observation that was deemed to be a PASC was also not completely described or captured in the report. In many cases, the licensee reported that an LBE was not performed.
However, during the audits, it was clear that an LBE (or an equivalent determination method) was performed and used in determining whether a PASC should be entered into the CAP. The staff expects that these conditions would be reported in the walkdown report.On the whole, through the audits, the NRC staff found that it was able to conclude that the intent of the guidance was met when the licensee's overall process was completely explained, the information was updated to reflect the actual process, and results were updated. The self-assessments conducted by the licensees of the audited plants also identified the lapse in the description of the process used by the licensee to identify a PASC and disposition it.Therefore, in order to clarify the process that was followed, please provide a description of the overall process used by the licensee (and its contractors) to evaluate observations identified in the field by the SWEs. The process should include how a field observation was determined to be a PASC or not and how the bases for determinations were recorded.
Once a determination was made that an observation was a PASC, describe the process for creating a condition report (or other tracking mechanism), performing the LBE (or other determination method), and the resultant action, such as entering it into the CAP, or documenting the result and basis.Also, in order to confirm that the reported information supports concluding that the plant meets the CLB, please follow one of the following three acceptable alternatives: (a) Provide a supplement to the table or text from the original walkdown report, if needed, to include similar conditions as the above examples and situations and for conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 3 of 4 determination.
The supplement should include a short description of each condition, how it was dispositioned and the basis for the disposition, as follows: 1) for each condition that was entered into the CAP, provide the CAP reference number, initiation date, and (if known)the planned completion date, or 2) for all other conditions, provide the result of the LBE (or other determination method), the basis for the result, and how (or where) the result was captured in the plant's documentation or existing plant process.(b) Following the plant's standard procedures, confirm that a new CAP entry has been made to verify if appropriate actions were taken when reporting and dispositioning identified PASCs (including conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a determination).
The eventual CAP closeout, including the process followed and actions taken, should be in sufficient detail to enable NRC resident inspectors to follow up.(c) If no new conditions are identified for addition to the supplement or the CAP entry mentioned above is deemed not necessary, provide a statement of confirmation that all potentially seismic adverse conditions (including conditions for which a calculation, analysis (if more than a simple analysis), or evaluation was used for a determination) identified during the walkdowns and walk-bys were addressed and included in the report to the NRC.Response: In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation
2.3 seismic
walkdown report process. Proposed changes to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-up telephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. As discussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRC audit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment.
As also discussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRC staff in this RAI. Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports are provided on the enclosed CD-ROM.Alternative (a) as described above was utilized to ensure the reported information supports concluding that the plants meet their current licensing basis (CLB). As such, alternatives (b) and (c) are not required.
Each condition report entered into the CAP has either had corrective actions closed or has been closed to another action tracking process, such as a notification in the work order process. The CAP allows the use of these notifications for conditions determined to not be a condition adverse to quality.
Attachment 1 L-1 3-358 Page 4 of 4 RAI 2: Conduct of the Peer Review Process As a result of the walkdown report reviews, the NRC staff noted that some descriptions of the peer reviewers and the peer review process that was followed were varied and, in some cases, unclear. In some cases, the staff could not confirm details of the process, such as if the entire process was reviewed by the peer review team, who were the peer reviewers, what was the role of each peer reviewer, and how the reviews affected the work, if at all, described in the walkdown guidance.Therefore, in order to clarify the peer review process that was actually used, please confirm whether the following information on the peer review process was provided in the original submittal, and if not, provide the following.(a) Confirmation that the activities described in the walkdown guidance on page 6-1 were assessed as part of the peer review process.(b) A complete summary of the peer review process and activities.
Details should include confirmation that any individual involved in performing any given walkdown activity was not a peer reviewer for that same activity.
If there were cases in which peer reviewers reviewed their own work, please justify how this is in accordance with the objectives of the peer review efforts.Also, if there are differences from the original submittal, please provide a description of the above information.
If there are differences in the review areas or the manner in which the peer reviews were conducted, describe the actual process that was used.Response: In July 2013, the NRC staff conducted an audit of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, NTTF Recommendation
2.3 seismic
walkdown report process. Proposed changes to the seismic walkdown reports were discussed in an audit follow-up telephone call held on September 4, 2013 between NRC staff and FENOC. As discussed during this call, the seismic walkdown reports for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were changed to address the items resulting from the NRC audit and the items resulting from an internal FENOC self-assessment.
As also discussed during this call, similar changes were made to the seismic walkdown reports for DBNPS and PNPP. These changes include the information requested by the NRC staff in this RAI. Section 9.2 of the reports describe details of the peer review process in accordance with the walkdown guidance on page 6-1 as noted in (a) above.Revision 1 of the DBNPS and PNPP seismic walkdown reports are provided on the enclosed CD-ROM.
Attachment 2 L-1 3-358 Document Components on CD-ROM Page 1 of I File Name 001 DBNPS Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl.pdf 002 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf 003 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf 004 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf 005 DBNPS Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App G.pdf 006 PNPP Seismic Walkdown Rpt Revl .pdf 007 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App A.pdf 008 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (1 of 2).pdf 009 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App B (2 of 2).pdf 010 PNPP Seismic Rpt Revl App C to App F.pdf Size 19,798 KB 17,570 KB 31,334 KB 27,711 KB 19,559 KB 17,304 KB 16,991 KB 33,402 KB 49,479 KB 26,915 KB