ML103210250: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML103210250
| number = ML103210250
| issue date = 12/13/2010
| issue date = 12/13/2010
| title = 10/22/10 Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Btw the Usnrc and Pseg Nuclear LLC Concerning Questions Pertaining to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application
| title = 10/22/10 Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Btw the USNRC and PSEG Nuclear LLC Concerning Questions Pertaining to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application
| author name = Brady B M
| author name = Brady B
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DLR/RPB1
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DLR/RPB1
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 13,2010 LICENSEE:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 13,2010 LICENSEE:         PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:         Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2  


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application.
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions. provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.
The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.
                                                ~~.
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 Nos. 50-272 and 50-311  
Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311


==Enclosures:==
==Enclosures:==
: 1. List of participants  
: 1. List of participants
: 2. Summary of meeting discussion  
: 2. Summary of meeting discussion
: 3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv PARTICIPANTS Bennett Brady Louise Lund Allen Hiser OnYee Gary Stevens John Hufnagel Sam Speer Albert Piha Ali Fakhar TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 AND LICENSE RENEWAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OCTOBER 22, 2010 AFFILIATIONS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) NRC NRC NRC NRC Exelon Exelon Exelon PSEG Nuclear, LLC ENCLOSURE
: 3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv
 
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OCTOBER 22, 2010 PARTICIPANTS                        AFFILIATIONS Bennett Brady                      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Louise Lund                        NRC Allen Hiser                        NRC OnYee                              NRC Gary Stevens                        NRC John Hufnagel                      Exelon Sam Speer                          Exelon Albert Piha                        Exelon Ali Fakhar                          PSEG Nuclear, LLC ENCLOSURE 1


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF MEETING ON DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ON WESTEMS SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND LICENSE RENEWAL OCTOBER 22, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC, held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the draft request for additional information (RAI) on the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software as shown in Enclosure  
OF MEETING ON DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WESTEMS PROGRAM SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION OCTOBER 22, 2010 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC, held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the draft request for additional information (RAI) on the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software as shown in Enclosure 3.
: 3. Based on the discussion, the NRC will: In the fourth request (4 th bullet), delete everything in the sentence from "if any" to the end of the request as it was redundant with the third request. In the sixth request (6 th bullet), delete Table 4.3.1-2, Table 4.3.2-1, and Table 4.3.2-2 as these TLAAs had been dis positioned from (ii) to (iii) in an earlier telephone conference on metal fatigue analysis. In bullets five and six, for the benchmarking analysis requested, provide additional information to the applicant on the specific locations to be used. This would only be necessary for one unit if it can be shown that it is bounding. Provide the applicant with a revised draft of the final RAI. ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL  
Based on the discussion, the NRC will:
* In the fourth request (4th bullet), delete everything in the sentence from "if any" to the end of the request as it was redundant with the third request.
* In the sixth request (6 th bullet), delete Table 4.3.1-2, Table 4.3.2-1, and Table 4.3.2-2 as these TLAAs had been dis positioned from (ii) to (iii) in an earlier telephone conference on metal fatigue analysis.
* In bullets five and six, for the benchmarking analysis requested, provide additional information to the applicant on the specific locations to be used. This would only be necessary for one unit if it can be shown that it is bounding.
* Provide the applicant with a revised draft of the final RAI.
ENCLOSURE 2
 
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


==Background:==
==Background:==


Section 4.3.1 of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA) mentions that data from the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software was reviewed with respect to pressurizer heatups and cooldowns.
Section 4.3.1 of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA) mentions that data from the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software was reviewed with respect to pressurizer heatups and cooldowns. Section 4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA credits the WESTEMS code for evaluation of fatigue for the pressurizer and surge line locations.
Section 4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA credits the WESTEMS code for evaluation of fatigue for the pressurizer and surge line locations.
Sections A.3.1.1 and B.3.1.1 of the Salem LRA identify that WESTEMS computes cumulative usage factors (CUFs) for select locations under a discussion of the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Section A.4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA mentions that WESTEMS was used to evaluate pressurizer insurge/outsurge transients and surge line stratification on the pressurizer.
Sections A.3.1.1 and B.3.1.1 of the Salem LRA identify that WESTEMS computes cumulative usage factors (CUFs) for select locations under a discussion of the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Section A.4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA mentions that WESTEMS was used to evaluate pressurizer insurge/outsurge transients and surge line stratification on the pressurizer.
Issue: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) is not clear on the specific use of WESTEMS at Salem. In addition, the staff has identified concerns regarding the results determined by the WESTEMS program as a part of the ASME Code fatigue evaluation process. For example, Westinghouse's response to NRC questions regarding the AP1 000 Technical Report (see ADAMS Accession No. ML 102300072, dated August 13, 2010), describes the ability of users to modify intermediate data (peak and valley stresses/times) used in the analyses.
Issue:
In addition, a response provided on August 20,2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 102350440) describes different approaches for summation of moment stress terms. These items can have significant impacts on calculated fatigue CUF. The potential impact for modifications such as these formed the basis for the staff's conclusions in Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-30, "Fatigue Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Components," dated December 16,2008, where it was noted that simplification of the analysis requires a great deal of judgment by the analyst to ensure that the simplification still provides a conservative result. The staff recognizes that WESTEMS has been developed under a formal Quality Assurance Program with supporting Technical Bases; however, it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy or conservatism of a component-specific application of WESTEMS given that a variety of analyst judgments may still be applied to the software outputs by the user on a case-specific basis. Request: The staff requests that the licensee provide clarification on the use of WESTEMS at Salem, as follows: Please clarify how WESTEMS is used at each Salem unit, especially with regard to the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Specifically, what transients and locations are monitored by WESTEMS, what WESTEMS stress modules are used, and are the stress models used at each Salem unit identical? Please describe whether the issues raised in ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 102300072 dated August 13, 2010, and ML 102350440 dated August 20, 2010, are applicable to each Salem WESTEMS monitored location.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) is not clear on the specific use of WESTEMS at Salem. In addition, the staff has identified concerns regarding the results determined by the WESTEMS program as a part of the ASME Code fatigue evaluation process.
If not, please describe the reasons those issues are not applicable.
For example, Westinghouse's response to NRC questions regarding the AP1 000 Technical Report (see ADAMS Accession No. ML102300072, dated August 13, 2010), describes the ability of users to modify intermediate data (peak and valley stresses/times) used in the analyses. In addition, a response provided on August 20,2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102350440) describes different approaches for summation of moment stress terms.
ENCLOSURE 3
These items can have significant impacts on calculated fatigue CUF. The potential impact for modifications such as these formed the basis for the staff's conclusions in Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-30, "Fatigue Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Components," dated December 16,2008, where it was noted that simplification of the analysis requires a great deal of judgment by the analyst to ensure that the simplification still provides a conservative result.
-2 For each location monitored by WESTEMS, please describe the historical fatigue analyses of record starting from the original ASME Code, Section III design basis fatigue analysis of record. For each follow-on analysis, please describe the reason for the analysis, whether the evaluation was referenced in the current licensing basis, and whether an updated ASME Code, Section III Design Specification and Code Reconciliation were performed in accordance with ASME Code, Section III requirements.
The staff recognizes that WESTEMS has been developed under a formal Quality Assurance Program with supporting Technical Bases; however, it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy or conservatism of a component-specific application of WESTEMS given that a variety of analyst judgments may still be applied to the software outputs by the user on a case-specific basis.
Please describe how these analyses are reflected in the results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-1,4.3.4-1,4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2. Please describe the environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF) analyses performed for each monitored location, if any, and how the stress models used in those analyses differ from the stress models and assumptions used in the governing analysis of record for each monitored location. Please describe the differences between the stress models used in WESTEMS and the stress models used in the currently governing fatigue analysis of record and the EAF analysis of record, if any, for each monitored location. Please describe how the transient counting results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-2,4.3.1-3, 4.3.1-4,4.3.2-1, and 4.3.2-2 are incorporated into the fatigue results shown in Tables 4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2. In addition, the staff requests a benchmarking evaluation of the component-specific application of the Salem locations monitored in WESTEMS using the same input parameters and assumptions as those used in the initial design basis analysis of record performed for each location in accordance with the ASME Code, Section III. The intent of this benchmarking evaluation is to confirm that the results of the WESTEMS model, including any analyst judgments, are acceptable and comparable to traditional ASME Code, Section III analyses of record for each of the monitored locations.
Request:
For each location, provide a summary of the benchmarking evaluation that includes the following information: A comparison of the calculated stresses and CUF using WESTEMS to the same results from the initial design basis analysis of record for all transient pairs representing at least 75% of the total CUF from the initial design basis analysis of record. One comparison for each unique stress model used in WESTEMS is sufficient. Describe the differences in the results between the WESTEMS evaluation and the initial design basis analysis of record for each location, and provide a justification for acceptability of the differences.
The staff requests that the licensee provide clarification on the use of WESTEMS at Salem, as follows:
December 13, 2010 LICENSEE:
* Please clarify how WESTEMS is used at each Salem unit, especially with regard to the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Specifically, what transients and locations are monitored by WESTEMS, what WESTEMS stress modules are used, and are the stress models used at each Salem unit identical?
PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:
* Please describe whether the issues raised in ADAMS Accession Nos. ML102300072 dated August 13, 2010, and ML102350440 dated August 20, 2010, are applicable to each Salem WESTEMS monitored location. If not, please describe the reasons those issues are not applicable.
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2  
ENCLOSURE 3
 
                                                -2
* For each location monitored by WESTEMS, please describe the historical fatigue analyses of record starting from the original ASME Code, Section III design basis fatigue analysis of record. For each follow-on analysis, please describe the reason for the re analysis, whether the evaluation was referenced in the current licensing basis, and whether an updated ASME Code, Section III Design Specification and Code Reconciliation were performed in accordance with ASME Code, Section III requirements.
Please describe how these analyses are reflected in the results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-1,4.3.4-1,4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2.
* Please describe the environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF) analyses performed for each monitored location, if any, and how the stress models used in those analyses differ from the stress models and assumptions used in the governing analysis of record for each monitored location.
* Please describe the differences between the stress models used in WESTEMS and the stress models used in the currently governing fatigue analysis of record and the EAF analysis of record, if any, for each monitored location.
* Please describe how the transient counting results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-2,4.3.1-3, 4.3.1-4,4.3.2-1, and 4.3.2-2 are incorporated into the fatigue results shown in Tables 4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2.
In addition, the staff requests a benchmarking evaluation of the component-specific application of the Salem locations monitored in WESTEMS using the same input parameters and assumptions as those used in the initial design basis analysis of record performed for each location in accordance with the ASME Code, Section III. The intent of this benchmarking evaluation is to confirm that the results of the WESTEMS model, including any analyst judgments, are acceptable and comparable to traditional ASME Code, Section III analyses of record for each of the monitored locations.
For each location, provide a summary of the benchmarking evaluation that includes the following information:
* A comparison of the calculated stresses and CUF using WESTEMS to the same results from the initial design basis analysis of record for all transient pairs representing at least 75% of the total CUF from the initial design basis analysis of record. One comparison for each unique stress model used in WESTEMS is sufficient.
* Describe the differences in the results between the WESTEMS evaluation and the initial design basis analysis of record for each location, and provide a justification for acceptability of the differences.
 
December 13, 2010 LICENSEE:       PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY:       Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant).
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant). and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22,2010.
and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22,2010. to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application.
to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions. provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary ofthe discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.
The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary ofthe discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.
IRA!
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 Nos. 50-272 and 50-311  
Bennett M. Brady, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311


==Enclosures:==
==Enclosures:==
: 1. List of participants  
: 1. List of participants
: 2. Summary of meeting discussion  
: 2. Summary of meeting discussion
: 3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
: 3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
See next page ADAMS Accession No' ML 103210250
See next page ADAMS Accession No'.. ML103210250                                *concurrence via e-mail OFFICE     PM:DLRRPB1           LA:DLR*           BC:DLRRPB1       PM:DLRRPB1 NAME       B. Brady             SFigueroa         B. Pham           B. Brady DATE       12/09/10             11/23/10         12/10/10         12/13/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy
.. *concurrence via e-mail OFFICE PM:DLRRPB1 LA:DLR* BC:DLRRPB1 PM:DLRRPB1 NAME B. Brady SFigueroa B. Pham B. Brady DATE 12/09/10 11/23/10 12/10/10 12/13/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from B. Brady dated December 13, 2010  
 
Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from B. Brady dated December 13, 2010 SUB~IECT:   


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION:
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, 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 LPerkins REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC ABurritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI}}
HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RdsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource BPham BBrady LPerkins REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC ABurritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI}}

Latest revision as of 06:01, 13 November 2019

10/22/10 Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Btw the USNRC and PSEG Nuclear LLC Concerning Questions Pertaining to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application
ML103210250
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 12/13/2010
From: Bennett Brady
License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:
BRADY B, NRR/DLR/RPB1, 415-2981
References
Download: ML103210250 (7)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 13,2010 LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22,2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant), and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions. provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary of the discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.

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 Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. List of participants
2. Summary of meeting discussion
3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OCTOBER 22, 2010 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Bennett Brady U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Louise Lund NRC Allen Hiser NRC OnYee NRC Gary Stevens NRC John Hufnagel Exelon Sam Speer Exelon Albert Piha Exelon Ali Fakhar PSEG Nuclear, LLC ENCLOSURE 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WESTEMS PROGRAM SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION OCTOBER 22, 2010 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC, held a telephone conference call on October 22, 2010, to discuss and clarify the draft request for additional information (RAI) on the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software as shown in Enclosure 3.

Based on the discussion, the NRC will:

  • In the fourth request (4th bullet), delete everything in the sentence from "if any" to the end of the request as it was redundant with the third request.
  • In the sixth request (6 th bullet), delete Table 4.3.1-2, Table 4.3.2-1, and Table 4.3.2-2 as these TLAAs had been dis positioned from (ii) to (iii) in an earlier telephone conference on metal fatigue analysis.
  • In bullets five and six, for the benchmarking analysis requested, provide additional information to the applicant on the specific locations to be used. This would only be necessary for one unit if it can be shown that it is bounding.
  • Provide the applicant with a revised draft of the final RAI.

ENCLOSURE 2

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Background:

Section 4.3.1 of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA) mentions that data from the WESTEMS fatigue monitoring software was reviewed with respect to pressurizer heatups and cooldowns. Section 4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA credits the WESTEMS code for evaluation of fatigue for the pressurizer and surge line locations.

Sections A.3.1.1 and B.3.1.1 of the Salem LRA identify that WESTEMS computes cumulative usage factors (CUFs) for select locations under a discussion of the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Section A.4.3.4.2 of the Salem LRA mentions that WESTEMS was used to evaluate pressurizer insurge/outsurge transients and surge line stratification on the pressurizer.

Issue:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) is not clear on the specific use of WESTEMS at Salem. In addition, the staff has identified concerns regarding the results determined by the WESTEMS program as a part of the ASME Code fatigue evaluation process.

For example, Westinghouse's response to NRC questions regarding the AP1 000 Technical Report (see ADAMS Accession No. ML102300072, dated August 13, 2010), describes the ability of users to modify intermediate data (peak and valley stresses/times) used in the analyses. In addition, a response provided on August 20,2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102350440) describes different approaches for summation of moment stress terms.

These items can have significant impacts on calculated fatigue CUF. The potential impact for modifications such as these formed the basis for the staff's conclusions in Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-30, "Fatigue Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Components," dated December 16,2008, where it was noted that simplification of the analysis requires a great deal of judgment by the analyst to ensure that the simplification still provides a conservative result.

The staff recognizes that WESTEMS has been developed under a formal Quality Assurance Program with supporting Technical Bases; however, it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy or conservatism of a component-specific application of WESTEMS given that a variety of analyst judgments may still be applied to the software outputs by the user on a case-specific basis.

Request:

The staff requests that the licensee provide clarification on the use of WESTEMS at Salem, as follows:

  • Please clarify how WESTEMS is used at each Salem unit, especially with regard to the Metal Fatigue of Reactor Pressure Boundary Program. Specifically, what transients and locations are monitored by WESTEMS, what WESTEMS stress modules are used, and are the stress models used at each Salem unit identical?
  • Please describe whether the issues raised in ADAMS Accession Nos. ML102300072 dated August 13, 2010, and ML102350440 dated August 20, 2010, are applicable to each Salem WESTEMS monitored location. If not, please describe the reasons those issues are not applicable.

ENCLOSURE 3

-2

  • For each location monitored by WESTEMS, please describe the historical fatigue analyses of record starting from the original ASME Code,Section III design basis fatigue analysis of record. For each follow-on analysis, please describe the reason for the re analysis, whether the evaluation was referenced in the current licensing basis, and whether an updated ASME Code,Section III Design Specification and Code Reconciliation were performed in accordance with ASME Code,Section III requirements.

Please describe how these analyses are reflected in the results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-1,4.3.4-1,4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2.

  • Please describe the environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF) analyses performed for each monitored location, if any, and how the stress models used in those analyses differ from the stress models and assumptions used in the governing analysis of record for each monitored location.
  • Please describe the differences between the stress models used in WESTEMS and the stress models used in the currently governing fatigue analysis of record and the EAF analysis of record, if any, for each monitored location.
  • Please describe how the transient counting results tabulated in Tables 4.3.1-2,4.3.1-3, 4.3.1-4,4.3.2-1, and 4.3.2-2 are incorporated into the fatigue results shown in Tables 4.3.7-1 and 4.3.7-2.

In addition, the staff requests a benchmarking evaluation of the component-specific application of the Salem locations monitored in WESTEMS using the same input parameters and assumptions as those used in the initial design basis analysis of record performed for each location in accordance with the ASME Code,Section III. The intent of this benchmarking evaluation is to confirm that the results of the WESTEMS model, including any analyst judgments, are acceptable and comparable to traditional ASME Code,Section III analyses of record for each of the monitored locations.

For each location, provide a summary of the benchmarking evaluation that includes the following information:

  • A comparison of the calculated stresses and CUF using WESTEMS to the same results from the initial design basis analysis of record for all transient pairs representing at least 75% of the total CUF from the initial design basis analysis of record. One comparison for each unique stress model used in WESTEMS is sufficient.
  • Describe the differences in the results between the WESTEMS evaluation and the initial design basis analysis of record for each location, and provide a justification for acceptability of the differences.

December 13, 2010 LICENSEE: PSEG Nuclear, LLC FACILITY: Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the applicant). and Exelon held a telephone conference call on October 22,2010.

to discuss and clarify the staff's questions concerning the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's questions. provides a listing of the participants, Enclosure 2 contains a brief summary ofthe discussion and status of the items, and Enclosure 3 provides the draft request for additional information.

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 Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. List of participants
2. Summary of meeting discussion
3. Draft request for additional information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next page ADAMS Accession No'.. ML103210250 *concurrence via e-mail OFFICE PM:DLRRPB1 LA:DLR* BC:DLRRPB1 PM:DLRRPB1 NAME B. Brady SFigueroa B. Pham B. Brady DATE 12/09/10 11/23/10 12/10/10 12/13/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

Memorandum to PSEG Nuclear, LLC from B. Brady dated December 13, 2010 SUB~IECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2010, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, CONCERNING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, 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 LPerkins REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC ABurritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML103210250&oldid=2124548"