ML11293A510

Lr - FW: NRC / FENOC Telecon Notes from September 13, 2011

ML11293A510
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/22/2011
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML11293A510 (6)

Text

Davis-BesseNPEm Resource From: CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:05 AM To: Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource

Subject:

FW: NRC / FENOC Telecon Notes from September 13, 2011 Attachments: NRC telecon 091311.pdf From: dorts@firstenergycorp.com [1]

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:50 AM To: CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Cc: custerc@firstenergycorp.com

Subject:

NRC / FENOC Telecon Notes from September 13, 2011 Sam..... attached are the telephone conference notes from our discussion on September 13, 2011. Should you have questions or comments regarding the attached, please contact me.

Thank you, Steve Dort DBNPS License Renewal 419.321.7662 work 412.974.3369 cell

---

The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.

1

Hearing Identifier: Davis_BesseLicenseRenewal_Saf_NonPublic Email Number: 1549 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D08050719EB8)

Subject:

FW: NRC / FENOC Telecon Notes from September 13, 2011 Sent Date: 9/22/2011 9:04:51 AM Received Date: 9/22/2011 9:04:53 AM From: CuadradoDeJesus, Samuel Created By: Samuel.CuadradoDeJesus@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource" <Davis-BesseHearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1116 9/22/2011 9:04:53 AM NRC telecon 091311.pdf 30750 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Doc No. 091311 TO: File DATE: September 13, 2011 FROM: Larry Hinkle

SUBJECT:

NRC Telecon Regarding Davis-Besse License Renewal NRC Attendees: Sam Cuadrado de Jesus, John Klos, Michelle Kichline, Ganesh Cheruvenki, Jeffrey Poehler, Christopher Sydnor, Angela Buford, Andrew Prinaris, Abdul Sheikh, Bryce Lehman, Alice Erickson FENOC Attendees: Cliff Custer, Steven Dort, Don Kosloff, Larry Hinkle, Steve Osting, John Hartigan, Richard Bair, Jake Hofelich, Vincent Capozziello This telephone conference call was initiated by Sam Cuadrado de Jesus, NRC Project Manager for Davis-Besse License Renewal. The telecon took place at 2:00 PM on September 13, 2011. The purpose of the call was to discuss Davis-Besse License Renewal Application (LRA) topics related to previous responses to NRC requests for additional information (RAIs) or to new questions. The topics, discussion summary and action items are as follows:

B.2.25-7 (8/17/2011 response) - A. Prinaris On Attachment 2, page 11, of the response, FENOC stated, All of the samples had tritium concentrations lower than observed from the July 28, 2004, sampling. The NRC Staff asked for the observed tritium levels of July 28, 2004.

FENOC stated that the tritium levels for monitoring well 18 were 667 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) and 728 pCi/L. No further discussion was held.

Action Item: None RAI 3.3.2.14-1 (8/26/2011 response) - J. Klos The NRC reviewer was concerned that not all applicable aging effects are identified for the fire water storage tank heat exchanger tubes. FENOC stated that the consequences of tube failure do not directly challenge the function of the tank.

Action Item: FENOC will review the issue to determine whether the fire water storage tank heat exchanger should be removed from scope. FENOC to provide a supplemental response to RAI 3.3.2.14-1.

LRA Table 3.1.2-X RPV flange leak detection line (Nickel alloy) AMR line item may be missing - New question - J. Poehler/G. Cheruvenki The NRC reviewer was concerned that a line item for the dissimilar metal weld (DMW) was not readily identifiable. FENOC stated the nozzle is stainless steel and not nickel-alloy, but that there is a nickel-alloy weld attaching the nozzle to the vessel closure flange. FENOC agreed to provide a separate line item in LRA Table 3.1.2-3 to address aging management of the subject weld.

2 Action Item: FENOC to provide a supplemental response to add a separate line item in Table 3.1.2-3 to address aging management of the nickel-alloy weld associated with the flange leakage piping.

LRA Section 4.7.3 - New question The NRC reviewer indicated that a reference could not be found for the fracture mechanics analysis that evaluated the integrity of the reactor vessel against pressurized thermal shock (PTS) for 52 effective full power years (EFPY) considering the 35°F minimum temperature for the borated water storage tank. In addition, a reference to this analysis was not identified in Section 5.2 of the Davis-Besse Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).

Action Item: FENOC to verify whether the analysis is docketed and provide the corresponding ADAMS accession number. FENOC to identify the applicable text in Section 5.2 of the USAR. Applicable information will be provided to the NRC Project Manager.

LRA Section 4.7.5.1 - New question The NRC identified that, for the Reactor Coolant System Loop 1 cold leg drain line nozzle weld overlay time-limited aging analysis (TLAA), a summary could not be located in LRA Appendix A, Updated Safety Analysis Report Supplement.

Action Item: If a summary exists, FENOC to provide the applicable section number of LRA Appendix A to the NRC Project Manager. Otherwise, FENOC to provide a supplemental response to add a summary to LRA Appendix A.

LRA Section 4.7.5.2 - New question The NRC identified that, for the steam generator shell flaw evaluation TLAA, a summary could not be located in Appendix A of the LRA.

Action Item: If a summary exists, FENOC to provide the applicable section number of LRA Appendix A to the NRC Project Manager. Otherwise, FENOC to provide a supplemental response to add a summary to LRA Appendix A.

RAI 4.6-1 (8/17/2011 response) - A. Buford The NRC asked FENOC to provide the basis for the 400 cycles for the containment vessel. FENOC replied that this was a conservative assumption of expected cycles for 40 years of operation. The NRC noted that this basis was not documented in the LRA Appendix A. FENOC agreed to add the basis to LRA Appendix A in a supplemental response.

The NRC noted that in the original LRA submittal, the pressure range for the fatigue waiver analysis was shown as -25 to 120 pounds per square inch (psi), whereas the range provided in the FENOC response to RAI 4.6-1 was -25 to 20 psi. FENOC indicated that the 120 psi value in the LRA was a typographical error, and that this value would be corrected in a supplemental response.

In RAI 4.6.1, FENOC noted that the pressure cycle range used in the fatigue waiver evaluation is from -25 to 20 psi, for a full range pressure fluctuation of 45 psi.

However, the possible full range pressure fluctuation is from -0.67 to 45 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) based on the containment vessel design allowable negative

3 pressure of -0.67 psig and the containment vessel pneumatic test pressure of 45 psig (design pressure of 36 psig times 1.25). FENOC further noted that this adjusted full range pressure fluctuation of 45.67 psi is less than the 80 psi value determined in the N-415.1(b) analysis, and therefore, the condition in N-415.1(b) is met.

The NRC requested that the basis for the -0.67 to 45 psig pressure range be included in LRA Appendix A. FENOC agreed to add the basis to LRA Appendix A in a supplemental response.

Action Item: FENOC to provide a supplemental response to RAI 4.6-1 to include the basis for the 400 cycles and the pressure range of -0.67 to 45 psig in LRA Appendix A. In addition, FENOC to provide clarification in the supplemental response to indicate that the pressure range of -20 to 120 psi provided in the original LRA submittal was a typographical error.

LRA Section 4.6.3 - New question The NRC noted that Section 4.6.3 states that the permanent canal seal plate (PCSP) was installed in 2004, whereas LRA Table 4.3-1 (transient 31A) that indicates the PCSP was installed in 2003. FENOC stated that, although the PCSP was physically installed in 2003, the transient cycle accrual for the PCSP did not start until the year 2004 (restart after the reactor head replacement), and that the cycle projections are based on the 2004 date. The NRC accepted this answer with no further discussion.

Action Item: None B.2.22-6 (8/26/2011 response) - A. Sheikh/B. Lehman The NRC noted that in the RAI response, FENOC stated in license renewal future Commitment 39 that core bores to access the inside surface of the embedded containment vessel would be performed in 2014 and, if required, in 2020. The NRC Staff wanted to know if the 2014 core bore could occur sooner. FENOC stated that outage plans are developed two years in advance, and that it would be challenging to perform the core bore sooner. However, FENOC agreed to consider a revised schedule for the core bore.

Action Item: FENOC to consider a revised schedule for the 2014 core bore and provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager.

B.2.22-7 (8/17/2011 response) - A. Sheikh/B. Lehman The NRC noted that, in the RAI response, FENOC provided a commitment to enhance the Inservice Inspection (ISI) - IWE Program to perform examinations prior to the period of extended operation to monitor for cracking of stainless steel containment penetration sleeves, dissimilar metal welds, bellows, and steel components that are subject to cyclic loading, but have no current licensing basis fatigue analysis.

The NRC Staff noted that the frequency was not specified, and asked for discussion of the inspection frequency. FENOC stated that the inspection frequency is planned to occur once each 10-year ISI interval; the inspections would be ISI augmented inspections. Also, the representative sample size is planned to be 10 percent of the scope. FENOC mentioned that the general condition of the penetration is noted

4 during Appendix J testing. In addition, FENOC stated that penetration fatigue analyses may be developed in lieu of inspections.

The NRC reviewer suggested that an LRA change/commitment be considered to document the frequency, sample size, basis for sample size, and to emphasize the use of Appendix J testing. In addition, FENOC should consider clarifying that fatigue analyses, if later performed for these penetration components, would then remove the requirement to perform examinations for cracking.

Action Item: FENOC to provide additional information related to containment penetration component cracking examination frequency, sample size, basis for sample size, and to emphasize the use of Appendix J testing. In addition, clarify that development of penetration fatigue analyses would remove the requirement to perform examinations for cracking. FENOC to provide a supplemental response to RAI B.2.22-7.

B.2.39-11 (8/26/2011 response) - A. Sheikh/B. Lehman RAI B.2.39-11 addressed groundwater effects to concrete and provided a commitment to obtain and evaluate for degradation a concrete core bore from two representative inaccessible concrete components of an in-scope structure subjected to aggressive groundwater prior to entering the period of extended operation (April 22, 2017). The NRC Staff deemed the information in the response acceptable, except that implementation by April 2017 is not acceptable. The NRC reviewer questioned whether the evaluation of core bores could occur and be dispositioned as early as 2014. FENOC agreed to consider a revised schedule and provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager.

Action Item: FENOC to consider changing the commitment implementation date and provide the outcome to the NRC Project Manager. If the commitment implementation date is changed, FENOC to provide a supplemental response.

There was no further discussion, and the call was concluded.