ML102320179

Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held on 6/21/10 Between the USNRC and PSEG Nuclear LLC Concerning Responses to Requests for Additional Information Pertaining to the Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application

ML102320179
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	09/02/2010
From:	Bennett Brady License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
BRADY B, NRR/DLR/RPB1, 415-2981
References
Download: ML102320179 (12)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 2,2010 LICENSEE:

PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:

Hope Creek Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JUNE 21,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC. CONCERNING REPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or the applicant).

and Exelon held a telephone conference call on June 21,2010 to discuss and clarify PSEG's responses to the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station license renewal application.

These responses were contained in a letter dated June 14, 2010, from Paul Davison to the NRC. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the responses to the staff's RAls. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the RAI responses and the staffs questions with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items. Enclosure 3 contains drawings that were provided by the applicant to aid in the discussion.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary. Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-354

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants

2. List of Questions on Responses to RAls and discussion

3. Drawings provided by applicant cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv TELEPHONE CONFERENCE HOPE CREEK GENERATING LICENSE RENEWAL LIST OF June PARTICIPANTS Bennett Brady Bo Pham Abdul Sheikh Bryce Lehman Hans Ashar Dan Naus Barry Oland George Seibold Jim Stavely Don Warfel John Hufnagel Mike Gallagher AI Fulvio Ahmed Ouaou AFFILIATIONS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) NRC NRC NRC NRC Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) ORNL PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) PSEG Exelon Exelon Exelon Exelon PSEG Consultant ENCLOSURE MEETING ON RESPONSE TO NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL FOR HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL JUNE 21, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC held a telephone conference call on June 21, 2010, to discuss and clarify the following responses to NRC staff requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) license renewal application (LRA). Response to RAJ 82.1.28-1 The response is comprehensive.

However, the NRC staff needs clarifications and revisions of commitments to ensure that aging effects are captured and managed Question The ultrasonic testing (UT) examination performed in 2009 was at selected locations at bottom of the drywell and not anywhere near the penetration sleeve J13. How can the 2009 examination be used as a justification?

The 2007 examination appears to be PSEG agreed that the 2007 examination was more comprehensive.

The UT examination 2009 was in response to industry operating experience (OE) with the drywell. These proactive measures in preparation for license renewal to confirm the findings that the was in good condition.

More additional work will be done in the upcoming Question Enhancement 3 and 4 in the Commitment Table in Enclosure C will be conducted once prior the period of extended operation (PEO) and one additional time during the first ten years of PEO. The NRC feels that once before the PEO and another 10 years after the PEO are enough, especially in view of leakage at penetration PSEG feels that their inspections have found that there is no debris that could clog the and there will not be any construction activity in the future.

Thus, there is no way debris clog the drains and no need for additional Question Enhancement 5: What is the time frame for completing This is an ongoing commitment and activity.

Any leakage discovered will be investigated ENCLOSURE 2

-Question Enhancement 6: What is the frequency for monitoring the PSEG indicated that this monitoring of the drains will be conducted daily during reactor flood-up if leakage is detected.

PSEG will modify the commitment to indicate Question Enhancement 7: What is the frequency for PSEG indicated that this monitoring of the penetration sleeve J13 will be conducted daily rector cavity flood-up if leakage is detected.

PSEG will modify the commitment to indicate Question Enhancement 8: What is the frequency for PSEG indicated that this monitoring of the drains will be conducted daily during flood-up leakage is detected.

PSEG will modify the commitment to indicate Question Enhancement 9: NRC stated that we need UT examination in 2010 and again during following outage even if results during 2010 examination are In summary, the staff stated that it has no concerns or comments to enhancements Items 1, 3,4,5 and 9 of the Commitment No. 28 in the PSEG Letter LR-N10-0190, Enclosure In summary, the applicant stated that it will revise Commitments No.6, 7, and 8 to penetration sleeve J 13, and drywell air gap drains daily when the reactor cavity is flooded leakage is Question Enhancement 10: What is the schedule for completing the As stated in the RAI Hope Creek will continue to investigate the cause of reactor cavity water leakage and make repairs, if practical, to stop the leaks. If this cannot be achieved prior to the period of extended operation, applicable aging management activities recommended in the Final Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-01 will be implemented to ensure loss of material in inaccessible areas of the drywell shell is effectively managed.

-Question The Commitment 10.a states Identify drywell surfaces requiring examination and implement augmented inspections for the period of extended operation in accordance with IWE-1240, as identified in Table IWE-2S00-1, Examination Category E-C. IWE-1241-a states that: Surface areas likely to experience accelerated degradation and aging require the augmented examinations identified in Table IWE-2S00-1, Examination Category E-C. Such areas include the following: (a) Interior and exterior containment surface areas that are subject to accelerated corrosion allowance with no or minimal corrosion allowance or areas where absence or repeated loss of protective coatings has resulted in potential corrosion and pitting. Typical locations of such areas are those exposed to standing water, repeated wetting and drying, persistent leakage, and those with geometries that permit water accumulation, condensation, and microbiological attack. Such areas may include penetration sleeves, stiffeners, surfaces wetted during refueling, ------." The staff's understanding of the Commitment 10(a} based on the IWE-1241, as noted above, is that UT examination of 100 percent of the drywell area below penetration J13 will be performed after the one time examination in 2010 during each inspection period (3 times in 10 years) until the reactor cavity water leakage from penetration J13 is repaired.

Repeated wetting and drying and persistent leakage from J13 can corrode the drywell. In addition, due to the geometry of the drywell, there is the potential for water being trapped below J13 even after the outages. Also, please provide a drawing of the drywell area which shows different components for reference.

This will help us understand the leakage flow path and will enable us to communicate better. Response:

PSEG provided the three drawing that are shown in Attachment

3. In an e-mail to B. Brady dated July 14, 2010, from John Hufnagel, Exelon, provided the following response to Question 9: PSEG agrees with the staff that Commitment 10.a, requires performing additional UT thickness measurements from inside the drywell shell after the one time examination in 2010, if J13 leakage continues.

UT inspections will be performed during each inspection period (3 times in 10 years) until the reactor cavity water leakage from penetration J13 is resolved.

However, as shown in the mark up below of your clarification, the examination area below J 13 is being clarified to reflect that it is not 100 percent of the area below

-penetration sleeve J13 but the area down to penetration J37. The basis for the clarification is no leakage was observed coming from penetration J37 coincident with the leakage from J13, and the air gap drains below these penetrations had no leakage. Penetration J37 is approximately 7 inches directly below J13. The area between J13 and J37 is where the potential standing water could be trapped. Since there was no identified leakage from J37 or any other penetrations or the air gap drains, inspecting the area between penetration sleeves J13 and J37 will insure no drywell shell corrosion due to the potential of standing water associated with the J13 leakage. The staff's understanding of the Commitment 1 O(a) based on the IWE-1241, as noted above, is that UT examination of drywell area below penetration J13 down to penetration J37 will be performed after the one time examination in 2010 during each inspection period (3 times in 10 years) until the reactor cavity water leakage from penetration J13 is repaired.

Repeated wetting and drying and persistent leakage from J13 can corrode the drywell. In addition, due to the geometry of the drywell, there is the potential for water being trapped below J13 even after the outages. PSEG will revise Commitments No.6, 7, and 8 for IWE to monitor penetration sleeve J13, and drywell air gap drains daily. A supplement to RAI B2.1.28-1 response will include the revised commitments.

These commitments were formalized in a letter dated August 9, 2010, from Robert Braun, PSEG, to NRC. The NRC staff found the response to be acceptable in principle.

However, the staff asked for the following additional clarification/information: Thickness and corrosion allowance of the drywell (both thicker and thinner The email from John Hufnagel states that penetration J37 is approximately 7 inches directly below J13. However, the attached sketch shows that J13 is located 2 feet above J37. This sketch was previously provided b In an e-mail dated July 13,2010, to B. Brady from J. Hufnagel, PSEG replied to the above two questions: The thickness of the drywell shell in the region of the J13 penetration is 1.5 inches thick as noted on LRA Page 3.5-24 for the Lower Sphere Location.

The local thickness used at the reinforcing area at the penetrations is 3.0 inches. The corrosion allowance is .063 inches. The centerline distance between penetrations J13 and J37 is 24 inches. The penetration nozzles are 12.75 in outside diameter, therefore distance between the edges of the nozzle is approximately 11 inches and not 7 inches as stated.

-RESPONSE TO RAls 82.1.28-02 Question:

NRC staff needs to ask the applicant how often they inspect the underwater surface of the torus since the LRA states that it was last inspected in 2004. ASME IWE Table 2500 allows deferral of inspection to the end of the 10 year interval.

There is a possibility of not using the deferral option and inspecting underwater more frequently.

Discussion:

Hope Creek has a ten year inspection interval.

RESPONSE TO RAI 82.1.29-01 What is the magnitude (stress) of the preload on the reactor vessel component support 105 ksi tensile stress as indicated in the Bolting Integrity Program on Page B-66 of the RESPONSE TO RAI 8.2.1.33-01 No additional questions RESPONSE TO RAI 8.2.1.32-01 Question Has there been any additional groundwater water sampling results since Water sampling was conducted six months apart in Question Has there been any change in the type of salt used for deicing the roads to reduce No change in the type of salt Question We may have one or two additional items for clarifications for this RAI during the No additional items were

.' -:",,::,., E_.

CRr"CE -IC"1 S_E\': :l3 I' t*1 111-. I 'il .1::/ FIL 1-3U:_CJIC PI.,]

RCS'3 SEC .Jr**.

I; II.) I I"-.J 1:1.) t,!) . ENCLOSURE

-I: ,",,'1 I II "I) I 'i1*.:,1 \. \. ..

'.. >/\.. : .JEL: "Ie

-......

I '\ '. ": \ . .

o::r'i.,u_

.' .:: ....:: ,.' '::".:'..:/ , :. .".:. . .... ;'W',

CiWPi

.: .:. "::: "\. " A'll: )r 1'1 .IH;IIJ: -..... , l* . 1'1" I' ',' ()' 1'1 ')' "'" ' . t' ,t-.' r.. I .HI .'+ ,' **

1"-12, . ,></. ' .. ' " /' ,/","I[ :;\12' . l /' " /' ? r.'", ." [:ii' I'{ :,I:il/. RJFTl eplI!t.,

I n'P, 4

L. J:!'. 2' c: 1-',_ [ Ii ,..{ I.) t rt'./ ';/ (II :\1 \JIl I: (/\11 r***. I

-DR 'j

L OR E;)'-l1' -", / ; ".' .' i'

. :'. ., : , I *, : .. ' .. ' . ...:-_.* --::_.i. .. *;.-4 .:' --.. .. ',' " .' , .' : ... .' ." ,', , '. 't',' :'" .' ..... , . :....... : .. .-, . , , I I

• I:Ji,!I:

eN,. 11',/ .r:' (f*nT TJ S:p_E September 2, 2010 LICENSEE:

PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:

Hope Creek Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JUNE 21,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING REPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on June 21, 2010 to discuss and clarify PSEG's responses to the staff's requests for additional information (RAls) concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station license renewal application.

These responses were contained in a letter dated June 14,2010, from Paul Davison to the NRC. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the responses to the staff's RAls. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the RAI responses and the staff's questions with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items. Enclosure 3 contains drawings that were provided by the applicant to aid in the discussion.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary. IRA! Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-354

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants

2. List of Questions on Responses to RAls and discussion

3. Drawings provided by applicant cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next page OFFICE LA:DLR 1:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME YEdmonds BBrady BPham BBrady DATE 101/10 09102/10 02/10 09/02/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from B. Brady, dated September 2,2010

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JUNE 21,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY: DLR RF E-MAIL: PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RdsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource BPham BBrady ACunanan SCuadrado CEccleston REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC ABurritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI